More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

The CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has our isotopic fingerprint. We are responsible for 100% of the increase from 280 ppm to 410 ppm.

2000 ppm is possible if you include all fossil fuel reserves and tipping point feedbacks. Although it is very unlikely we will let it get out of control like that it is a possibility that cannot be eliminated.

 

Anyone who can prove a negative deserves a Nobel Prize.

 

That's not proving a negative though. To falsify the AGW hypothesis you need to present a convincing argument that either the planet is not warming or that nature is primarily responsible. Finding just one physical process that is primarily modulated by nature is all you need...just one.

 

But how can that be possible if Trump didn't go along with the Paris climate agreement? John Kerry said Trump's decision to ignore it all was "the single greatest act of irresponsibility of any president of the United States at any time", and that includes withdrawing the troops from Iraq in 2011.

Are you suggesting that John Kerry, the Democratic spitfire, is not credible and engages in hyperbole?

 

Can you show me a hindcast by a reputable source (not some graphic made up by a denier) that you feel is notoriously poor. Likewise, can you show me where in the Charney Report, the IPCC reports, or any source that has wide acceptance by the scientific community that we are only 10 years away from destruction?

First, CO2 isn't the only factor that modulates the climate.

Second, the only way to skillfully explain both past and present climate changes to consider all climate forcing agents and mechanics including CO2. The paleoclimate record is consistent with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Also keep in mind that the Sun brightens as it ages. The Sun was dimmer in the distant past and yet their were eras when the Earth was much warmer than today. This is referred to as the faint young Sun paradox. The paradox is explained in large part of the positive radiative forcing of GHGs.

 

Perhaps we can look to historical evidence which may point to some warming or cooling in the past.

I'm not a climatologist but it's my understanding that there were some previous changes in the earth's temperature at some points many years ago, even before humans entered the scene. I sure would like one of them there Nobel Prizes if I'm right.

 

You are right that CO2 is not the only factor. You can actually argue it is a minor player, but damn, it is the only player you can use in politics. How do you reduce your H2O footprint? You can't tax humidity. At least with a straight face. But at least Obama took inhalers away from those polluting asthmatic children! I'm sure we would have been 10 degrees warmer without those rug rats wheezing on the playgrounds of America.

And yes, we owe our existence to GHGs. Space is a damn cold place, and if Earth were to assume equilibrium there would likely be no life on this frozen marble. The question is whether a tiny fraction of an increase in GHG would be catastrophic. We know from the fossil record that the answer is NO. Life goes on. It may have to adapt and migrate but we (carbon life forms) have been through this. Personally I would like a little warmer climate, though I know I will not see one in my lifetime. Malthusian predictions are convenient in that way. You never have to say you were wrong.

 

A clue? I have that. But I do not know if they asked the specific question that you have in mind. Go read the link in the OP.

 

Absolutely there were periods of warming and cooling previously. They were caused by (in no particular order): orbital mechanics, solar intensity, asteroids, volcanoes, massive greenhouse infusions into the atmosphere.

The potential cause which currently describes the warming trend is the massive infusion of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

 

The absolute cause which currently describes the warming trend is the massive infusion of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, reduced significantly by the Catalytic converter in the United States..., and increased significantly by Snowcat in Hyderabad:



Amending to provide link, the Catalytic converter doesn't remove the biggest offender, It is why I ride a Honda Grom:
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/29/us/autos-converters-cut-smog-but-add-to-global-warming.html

Now if someone would buy me a Zero motorcycle, I would be happier.

 

Its pretty clear you didn't read your own link because it proved nothing of what you said.

 

Would you mind explaining your understanding of the logic behind the bolded?

 

The question asked, was it dinosaur farts? The link provided said it may have been volcanic activity.

 

Rode through a half a foot of salt water on the north loop Daytona Beach last week, bad road planning or something else, I really don't like the idea of Florida turning into a reef again.

 

Except that polar bears and trees are not endangered but if they were they are still inferer to humans

 

Which was one of the sources, it seems, for the previous causes. I really don't want to be rude but these scares come along every decade or so whether it's over population, international starvation, global cooling, or just the wrath of God. I cannot take them seriously and wonder at the those who do.

 

It's a riddle, wrapped in mystery, inside an enema.

 

Just not sure why you continue to assert this. C14 is naturally produced. How can you differentiate natural vs man made C14? The classic assumption based conclusion. Depending on who's study you refer, all of the C 12, c 13, c 14 isotopes are problematic and indicate additive man made causality. The question is why? The assertion most commonly associated is that CO2 must always be constant in the atmosphere. Clearly, this isn't true. As C 12 is the most common represented in the air, the assertion is that all sources of fuels emit C 12 because the earth was "cooler" when those organic substances were alive. As if there is actual evidence of this or something. It truly is laughable when you start digging more deeply into the superficiality of the logic lines here.

 

When you don't have a clue.

All you're doing here is saying that people who disagree with you are idiots and you don't have any idea what they really said.

 

No. I am saying that 36% of Republicans do not acknowledge that the climate is changing. If you think they asked the question in some underhanded fashion or should I have asked it in a different way, then make the argument.

But you would need to read the OP first.

 

yes but you don't have anything to back it up. You could say 36% of Republicans believe they are leprechauns.

no I don't have to prove your claim wrong you have to prove your claim correct.

 

Nothing to back it up? I wrote the OP. I linked an article and the original survey.

This is the quote I provided.

 

But you can't seem to tell me the questions they asked. So no you don't have anything to back it up.

 

FFS.



That took 30 seconds.

 

I assert it because it's well understood and there's little if any controversy about it excluding of course the manufactured controversy from non-expert bloggers.

14C is radioactive with a half-life of about 5,000 years. The naturally produced 14C (from high up in the atmosphere) makes it's way into the natural carbon cycle create a background level ratio between it and 13C/12C. However, fossil fuels are millions of years old so the 14C has completely decayed away. The 14C depletion in fossil fuels causes the ratio of 14C to 13C/12C to decline as fossil fuel sourced carbon emissions are injected into the carbon cycle. This is plainly and uncontroversial observed in ice core and tree ring analysis prior to the bomb spike after WWII. Furthermore, fossil fuels have a different 13C-to-12C ratio than the atmospheric ratio. Injecting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere is adjusting the 13C-to-12C ratio as well. Again, this is not controversial. And finally, a 3rd line of evidence is by doing a mass accouting of the carbon. The amount of carbon we have dug up out of the ground is matches almost perfectly with the additional carbon that has appeared in the carbon cycle.