I think you're talking as though we're 'at the pinnacle' of science. We're never at the pinnacle.
Bear in mind:
Man's brain size hasn't changed (it's reduced if anything) - so people in the past were as intelligent as they are today. The point being that people today look back and see earlier scientific givens and results as false - hindsight and better knowledge. NOT because people are any more intelligent today. So it follows that people tomorrow will have a better insight than those today. That is how science works. Standing on the shoulders of giants. But also man is a flocking animal. Man in general likes to feel part of the crowd. That applies to scientists as well as bin men. So once a thing becomes popular - it gets consensus. I bet I could show scientists who said smoking wasn't damaging to health in the past. How many today? So once a scientific meme takes hold it's hard to break out of that mode. Science also tends to work after the event - it analyses effects and shows causes - not so good at taking a cause and predicting an effect in complex cases. We're good at seeing now (with hindsight) that concreting over large areas may cause flooding - but we didn't stop before we built because science said 'that would be a mistake as you'll get flooding' - what also was/is the effect on climate? We all see trees as CO2 munchers, but all plants have an effect don't they? And the more CO2, the more they absorb.
The models of CO2 warming have not been consistent - AFAIK there is not a direct correlation between tonnage of CO2 emissions and warming. Could there be another factor - another agent? IE Could pollution be killing billions of micro organisms in the sea (and isn't water 2/3rds of the earth surface?) that absorb CO2. A scenario - 10 years ago x tonnage causes 1 degree change - BUT in the past x/2 tonnes were absorbed, so now emitting x tonnes causes a 2 degree rise? But the issue ISN'T the CO2 per se - the issue in the scenario is that the micro organisms are dying. So by tackling JUST the CO2, you are hitting a symptom and not the problem. The ecology seems to be quite a complex system - so what changes in the ecology of the planet may also be related to temperature change?
As I said before - IF production of CO2 is perceived to be the problem - and that appears to be the consensus at this point in time - then tackling CO2 (as long as by tackling it another issue isn't created) is good. BUT in the scenario above - just tackling CO2 emissions doesn't solve the problem. And what's worse, it detracts from what the issue actually may be.
I don't dispute CO2 figures (although I'm not sure just how you get tonnage of CO2 in the air globally), I don't dispute CO2 causes warming. But what else causes warming/cooling? Nothing? Are all the changes in temperature on the earth over millions of years purely down to CO2 in the atmosphere (and how then was that CO2 regulated (or not as the case may be) over those millions of years when man wasn't 'over producing'?)? - what about changes in the magnetic field? What about changes in the activity of the sun? There could be hundreds of different causes that we're unaware of as yet - that science hasn't as yet documented.
We are aware of other greenhouse gases, but CO2 is the worst, because it is present in the largest quantity. it is not just the warming effect of CO2, but the pH effect when it dissolves in water. The decrease in pH, is a potent cause of plankton and coral death, [ as of course is warming of the seas ], both of which would normally "mop" up CO2. There is obviously a double whammy effect here, which leads to a rapid acceleration of decline in sea plant life. Obviously there is more to discover, but we know enough now, and we have a very finite amount of time to do something, before the positive feedback cascade makes it all irrelevant. As individuals we can only do a small amount, but lots of small amounts can lead to a big change.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
CO2 levels have fluctuated since the beginning of time and the effect is then the same over time isn't it - ie CO2 still dissolved in water and caused issues then as well? The planet has changed over time. It has, does and will. Nothing stays the same.
However, I repeat, if it is perceived (and it appears it is) that CO2 is the sole cause of climate change , and man is causing the excess CO2, then tackle it - no issue. I'll do my bit - but I personally think that the ecology of the planet is vastly complex and putting a problem down to a single thing appears overly simplistic. Take a look at what they're seeing now with how a weakened magnetic field has influenced temperature in the upper atmosphere. There could be a whole variety of causes - and much as we didn't know how important micro organisms in the gut were/are to health in humans - many of which we may not even dream of today. Science only knows what science knows - at a point in time.
I don't disagree @steveTu, there are many factors responsible, but one of them is CO2, and we can do something about that. Another one is Methane, we can also do something about that.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Good posts Steve and Rick, , unfortunately not too many see the wider picture, as you say, let’s all hug, return out black flower pot to the garden centre, refuse the plastic bag and all will be well. What can they do about methane ? it bubbles up from the oceans, and the wetlands, I’ve seen and smelled it on Dartmoor. If they think not eating beef will cure that, then good luck with that one as well.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
No we’re saying that, but the world is what it is and always has been. Not all of the problems can be solved without creating another one. In fact I can’t see that any problem will not create another. One plane journey pumps out as much pollution as our house does in a year, how many planes go up in a day round the world, that’s not going to change. We are here on this planet by a freak of nature, If it ends, we’ve had a good run.
Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor.
"The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it."
I would not take any notice of Ian Plimer, his arguments have been totally discredited. He also happens to be a director of at least one coal mining company, so perhaps he is not entirely impartial?
"He likes to argue that his position on global warming is dismissed by mainstream scientists because they are part of a "fundamentalist religion" and a "mafia". In fact, his arguments are rejected because they are just plain wrong."
Posts
it is not just the warming effect of CO2, but the pH effect when it dissolves in water. The decrease in pH, is a potent cause of plankton and coral death, [ as of course is warming of the seas ], both of which would normally "mop" up CO2. There is obviously a double whammy effect here, which leads to a rapid acceleration of decline in sea plant life.
Obviously there is more to discover, but we know enough now, and we have a very finite amount of time to do something, before the positive feedback cascade makes it all irrelevant.
As individuals we can only do a small amount, but lots of small amounts can lead to a big change.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Another one is Methane, we can also do something about that.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
as you say, let’s all hug, return out black flower pot to the garden centre, refuse the plastic bag and all will be well.
What can they do about methane ? it bubbles up from the oceans, and the wetlands, I’ve seen and smelled it on Dartmoor. If they think not eating beef will cure that, then good luck with that one as well.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Not all of the problems can be solved without creating another one. In fact I can’t see that any problem will not create another.
One plane journey pumps out as much pollution as our house does in a year, how many planes go up in a day round the world, that’s not going to change.
We are here on this planet by a freak of nature, If it ends, we’ve had a good run.
"The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it."
I would not take any notice of Ian Plimer, his arguments have been totally discredited. He also happens to be a director of at least one coal mining company, so perhaps he is not entirely impartial?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer
"He likes to argue that his position on global warming is dismissed by mainstream scientists because they are part of a "fundamentalist religion" and a "mafia". In fact, his arguments are rejected because they are just plain wrong."
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”