Although the earth's climate is almost entirely driven by factors quite apart from the contributions of living organisims, all living organisms do contribute something to earth's climate. Some contribute much more than do human activities. Two that come to mind are algae and bacteria. Humans know a vanishingly insignificant percentage of not only what can be known about earth's climate but also what needs to be known to even be able to begin to understand what is now being claimed to be understood. Claims of anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change are an antropocentric arrogance. This is not the first time expersts, in some narrow field of expertise, have been left to sincerely believe that their field of expertise is the most important thing in the world, and that life on earth, as we know it, hinges upon their contributions. I have personally heard politicians and preachers make the same claim.
33.000.000.000 metric tons of CO2 PER YEAR are peanuts , of course they have no effect in climate change ...
No effect ? I wouldn't say that. A vanshingly insignificant percentage of that which affects climate, yes.
Please tell me how much effect that amount of CO2 has on climate change and how you arrived at the figure? Thanks.
From the link "What level is safe? The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988." How was the number 350 derived? The site does not say. (It was pulled from someone's nether regions - it was not scientifically derived.) If anything over 350 is "unsafe" and we've been higher than that level for 25 years, exactly what examples are there that this has been unsafe? What have been the dire consequences of such "high" levels of CO2?
The problem is not that climate scientists don't make predictions based on physics... The problem is that they can only make predictions based on as much physics as they understand...
Thanks to the efforts of the board denialists I can see we have no proof we live on the planet earth. Until we have isolated every molecule and atom and assessed them correctly it is all simply speculation.
Ah yes... the brilliant physicists may have 5 times the knowledge that puny little forum poster me has... so instead of understanding 1% maybe they understand 5%. Too bad that's still not enough to predict surface temperature anomalies fifteen years out with any statistically significant accuracy.
Plucking random numbers isn't scientific, and very messy. Your ignorance seems encyclopaedic. Is there anything else you know little about that you would care to expound on?
Looks like you've been lied to, Haldir. I'm guessing your denier friends have you pegged as another gullible chump who's too lazy to check the facts. Shame on them.
The earth's climate is almost entirely driven by factors quite apart from the contributions of living organizisms. Human activities are only a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction contributed by living organizisms. Anthropocentric-catastrophic-global climate change is an anthrocentric arrogance. It is in all disproportion in scale. Not only is it a farce, it is not even a very good one. Anthropocentric-catastrophic-clobal climate change will not have the 'legs' some other such scams have ejoyed in the past. The Catholic Church sold 'dispensations' from sins for centuries. A.-C.-G. climate change is nothing but a transparent attempt to have an earth-based religion do the same thing.
It's not about the science. Never was. The Warmers are part of the larger Big Government tribe in US politics. They are allied with gun confiscators, the IRS, the NSA, DHS and the wetlands crowd. Their general objective is a powerful government that controls every aspect of people's lives - much like the government of Cuba. The Skeptics are part of the larger Small Government tribe which generally opposes the aims of the Big Government tribe. Take away the Warmers' demands for more taxation and regulation and AGW becomes a very arcane and insignificant squabble. It isn't the science. Both sides can present their scientific cases and each side rejects the others' scientists ad hominem. But the average Joe and Jane see a lot of snow and Antarctic icebreakers caught in pack ice and find AGW a bit much to believe.
Wow, I just got here, and you're already resorting to the ad hominems, eh... I was only getting my information from the ignoramuses at The Economist... ...the dupes who publish in Nature... ...and that far-right science-denier Michael Mann who publishes in that denialist rag, the Huffington Post... So maybe a few of the models are still barely within bounds.. I guess we don't need to belabor that point too much because the next few years will tell us if they were or not anyway, right?
And that was your first mistake: trusting an economist to know anything about climatology. Which should have been obvious when the very first sentence of the article contains a blatant falsehood: "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earths surface have been flat". Utter nonsense, as anyone who is informed by any reputable source would have known. Proving only that even science writers can be misleading, as there is no statistically significant difference between global temperature trends during the past 15 years and trends during the preceding 15 years. Or the preceding 30 years, for that matter. (Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.) While both Mann and Tollefson state that the temperature trend is lower during the past 15 years, neither one states that the difference is statisically significant. They don't say that because it's not true. Right.
Could you provide a source for that connection - one that shows CO2 levels above 350 ppm caused mass extinction?
Ooooh! Strawman - not what I said https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906 Figure 3 – Plot of percent mass extinction of genera versus peak atmospheric CO2 levels at several stages of Earth history. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html#jCp
Corelation is not causation. After all, over 99.9% of the children that went blind after the age of ten, in the US, in 2012, had eaten carrots.
Clearly you know next to nothing about climate science, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who know a lot more about it than you. Enough in fact to make a very convincing case that human actions are changing the climate and creating a mass extinction event. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is not understandable.