|
jshell wrote: Look, it may be that CO2 causes 'this' warming, we just cannot definitively prove it. No one has, albeit yet.
Actually, that's just wrong.
That CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" has been known for almost 150 years. Tyndal published On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction in 1861 (accessible here, though it's behind an academic paywall). In this paper, Tyndal presents laboratory results demonstrating that the higher the concentration of CO2 in a sample of air, the higher it's absorption rate of longwave radiation (specifically, heat).
These results have been repeated and refined dozens of times since then, most notably by Herzberg (1953), Burch (1970) and a whole bunch of others.
There is no longer any debate about the heat absorption properties of CO2. None whatsoever.
So having identified this property in a laboratory, the next issue to confront is whether or not it has been identified in the atmosphere as a larger system. And once again, the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes'.
We have been using satellites to measure the radiation of heat into space since 1970. In 2004 Griggs & Harries published an analysis of all of the data between 1970 and 1997 and identified "a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy" (source). A further analysis was carried out by Chen in 2007, including data collected by the newly launched AURA satellite which confirmed these results.
i.e.:
"Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space." (same source)
It's clearly uncontroversial to suggest that human activity is resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 (as well as methane and other "greenhouse gases"). So we do, despite the objections of skeptics and deniers, have empirical evidence that human acitivity is likely to be causing a rise in global temperature.
I say "likely" because I concede that it is technically possible that there could be a feedback mechanism in operation that is neutralising the effects of human emissions while simultaneously some other process is causing rises in global temperatures.
That explanation, however, departs from the realm of healthy scepticism and enters that of genuine denial.
So when you suggest that:
jshell wrote: However, the financial decisions that are being taken on a non-proven belief are too great.
I'd have to say that this "non-proven belief" you're talking about is about as "well-proven a fact" as you are likely to get about something as large and complex as the global atmosphere. If you demand of climate observation a level of proof of the same order as can be achieved in a laboratory, then you are unlikely to ever receive it.
But taking into account those CO2 laboratory results, the satellite data regarding the drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength of "greenhouse gases" plus the potential consequences of inaction, it is recklessly irresponsible to recommend inaction until you get the kind of proof you demand; one that may be beyond the ability of modern climate science to produce.
On top of that, the "financial decisions" you are complaining about are damn near non-existent. There are precious few limitations to emissions that have been implemented. And those that have been are the ones that permit profit-making off their back (you really think car companies are upset when people buy hybrids? You think the industrial conglomerates growing biofuels aren't making money hand over fist?)
The "action" we are taking to deal with Climate Change is either an illusion or a scheme to spin a profit in some other way (or, part of a tiny proportion of PR projects). And the evidence (if not the absolute proof) demands far more than that.
|
