That has been confirmed for decades: "The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)."
"An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface.
This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
Again, I'm not saying that it is not a factor, I'm not even saying that CO2 doesn't create a warmer atmosphere then if there it's concentration is lower.
What I AM saying is that NOONE understands the climate well enough to say for certain WHAT is causing the warming, anymore then we'll know what causes the next cooling trend.
There IS a correlation with climate and CO2... typically a lag time, ie: the warming trend begins, and there is more life, more animals, more people, etc... but there's certain cross points where there's the CO2 seems to move ahead... SO, already that demonstrates that the relationship is NOT cause effect, but something different.
And don't ask me WHAT that is, because I don't claim to know... and those that DO claim to know are offering the correlation AS causation. When the reality is that's at the least a misunderstanding of a complex system OR a flat out lie.
We know through direct measurements that solar activity has been minimum during the current warming. What else you got?
Solar activity has hit a minimum, but who said that this was the ONLY factor?
1 - Stellar radiation has an impact on the percentage of the earth under cloud cover
2 - The moons' magnetic fields might divert solar energy away from the earth, or in other positions might direct energy from the sun focusing it more on the earth.
3 - The level of solar energy
4 - The earths gravitational field is also not a constant, reasonably close to, but it's not constant. The magnetic north pole is continuously
5 - Activities on the earth... if 10 mt st helens went off sporadically around the world you would be likely to see a level of cooling.
6 - The Jet stream...
And a whole list of other factors that have lesser or greater impacts on the overall climate in such an intricate system that there isn't a computer on earth that could POSSIBLY calculate all the variables in order to generate an ACCURATE prediction what the climate will hold in the future.
Scientist didn't just look at CO2, they looked at all the things that have caused the earth to warm in the past and, through research, methodically eliminated other possible causes.
Are you sure that's the case?? Are you sure that they didn't start out with the theory of how evil CO2 is and then find all the evidence to support that case?
The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international issues such as sustainability of our resources, a very noble and conservative cause.
At face value, yes.
They are "composed of "scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies."
That sounds like something they would put on their website for PR purposes...
In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution.
[4] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."
Yes... that's why back in the late 60's the talk was of creating a fake alien invasion to unify the population and wage war with the alien beings... but that document was long ago labelled a fake, not that I could blame the person 'debunking' this for saying so... it's hard to conceive of a person that is making plans in the several generations down the line. When was the last time you thought about planning for the lives of your great grand childrens life??
But, yes, that's a key theme as to the WHY of the conspiracy theory, that humans NEED to be controlled or else society would devolve into anarchy.
[5] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[5] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
This is THE choice quote pulled out from the book... this is a summary of the thesis of this report.
But, just as telling is the opening quote :
"Oh Love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would we not shatter it to bits and then,
Remould it nearer to the hearts desire?" - Edward Fitzgerald, The Rubalyat of Omar Khayyam.
The thing is, that just like with 'limits to growth', it is written in a manner that is palatable for the most part... but you really need to read through either or of these books to truly understand the 'new society' they are talking about... I can sum it up for you :
- Controlled population
- drugged to be kept sterile,
- every human born in vitro and raised by the state.
- no education, only training for your selected job.
- completely controlled actions through 'calorie cards' and once you've used up your calorie alotment it is your turn to die, you've used your share of resources.
Club of Rome: The First Global Revolution
If you ever read the book 'brave new world'... that's pretty much exactly the type of world these people are describing.
(In his own words on the subject.)
You need to read their own words... NOT the wikipage...
What they are talking about is uniting people to help solve problems we have in common.
Yes... a 'noble' goal, but once you read through you'll understand that it is ONLY a 'noble goal' if you believe in Machiavellian 'the ends can justify any means'.
As I agree with the conservative principles behind sustainability, I'm afraid I just don't see this as a nefarious conspiracy. It is not logical to me whereas the science behind AGW is logical and is confirmed by a consensus of the world's top scientists.
Right, the thing is the concept of 'greenhouse effect' does not translate to 'overall global warming'... yes, it's part of the equation, but it is NOT the whole equation. This is why people can't / won't answer specifics as to how much specific levels of CO2 will increase the global climate, it's that the system is so complex that while there is a correlation, and maybe a level of 'causation', since Co2 levels are such a minute part of the equation that the projections have only been accurate in the sense that there was an overall warming trend for more then a century already... and to an extent before even the industrial revolution which is considered the CAUSE of the overall warming.
So, these people are working on plans to recreate society into a 'stable and balanced society', and they are using environmentalism as a tool, along with famines, disease, war, etc... as a means to that end. So, if you agree that the ends justify the means, and can accept that there's only about a 1:8 to 1:10 chance that you will live to see this new world... then I guess you can view this as an overall good thing...
So, I can't tell you what to think if you actually see the facts for yourself, but if you DO take the time to see what is REALLY going on... and these people (not these specific people, but I mean the same calliber of individuals that make up these types of groups, in the past)... but I DO know for sure that since one of your motives is to do good for your grandchildren, that once you realize what's at stake you'll have to do some real soul searching as to what the best approach really is... ie; continuing to believe what the 'experts' tell you, or to denounce the whole 'green' movement as little more then a scam in the name of 'fighting for the earth'.
But, I am so insistent that this side of the equation at least be accepted and looked at, so at the very least you will understand that whether it's collaborative or conspiracy IT IS NOT THEORY.
that is certain to be ignored
No, not ignored, just pointed out as reinforcing correlation... not causation.
It is tough. I mean, energy in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs is escaping the atmosphere in smaller quantities, directly proportional to what you'd expect from the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere matches what humans emit (in fact, its less because nature is absorbing some of it for us)
Again, is it the CO2 jumping up because we're in a warming trend and there's more animal life on earth then there was 150 years ago and so CO2 is rising as well, causing a slight boost to those temperatures because of the greenhouse effect?? Or do you have the proof that the Co2 is CAUSING the overall warming trend?
Nobody knows when this warming trend will end...
Bman, I have to ask: What WOULD constitute proof to you that CO2 is causing warming? There's direct observational evidence of what CO2 does in that particular spectrum of energy, direct observational evidence that this energy is what the earth radiates, and direct observational evidence that this same energy is being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. From there it's just a matter of running the math to see if the amount of warming matches expectations, right? Guess what? They did that too.
The proof is simply : X concentration of CO2 over a year will create a climate temperature of Y degrees for that year.
That's why they need a 'margin of error' that's just huge...
As I said before, it is every scientific organization on Earth vs. the silly bloggers and pundits. You can believe who you want to believe, of course, and will, but that is what the argument boils down to. There really is no debate about the basic findings: The Earth is warming up, the warming process is being accelerated by human activity, and the warming is causing changes in local climates.
Are you back to saying that there is no global warming now? Your argument keeps shifting from "It isn't real" to "it has nothing to do with human activities" and back again, just like that of those silly bloggers and pundits you keep listening to.
No no... the warming is real, the cause is not understood... and just because it's been overall warming for some time, does not mean it will continue to do so.
The people that claim to know are really just making a guess... and if it wasn't for a large margin of error, most of their guesses would have been too high.