Yes, I am. You obviously have never studied the climate, because even change that appears small can have a huge impact.
You seem to have some difficulty in separating reality from computer models. I don't blame you because your high priests don't make it clear to you, or anyone else, when they are citing the results of climate simulations and models and when they are citing observational data, that being, data collected from actual measurements.
We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Computer modeliing is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?
The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It appears that it is you who has never studied climate change. You have memorized the misinformation that has been given to you quite well though. Memorization, however, does not constitute study. Study would entail actually understanding the science and few, with the exception of the high priests, who understand the science accept AGW theory.
It's water vapor, and there's much more of it. Water vapor levels are also a problem, although CO2 has had the most drastic change and is the most effective on most people.
You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas but you are dead wrong when you claim that CO2 has the most impact. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Are you aware that computer models don't include water vapor in their calculations because we don't posess enough computing power to include water vapor because of its complexity. Imagine, taking computer models seriously when they don't even include the source of 95% of the earth's greehouse effect.
Water vapor is 99.999% natural in origin. And the vast bulk of other greenhouse gases are also natural in origin. As I have said, mankind's entire CO2 production is not enough to even overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.
Refer back to the historical temperature chart that I provided. Note that the earth has a temperature range in its ups and downs and it doesn't really matter whether the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 7000 parts per million or 380 parts per million, the temperatures go on as they have always gone on. This is a perfect example of observational data not matching the computer models. Now what are you going to believe? What you can actually measure and see, or what a computer tells you that you should have seen?
Here is a graphic depicting man's contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.
As I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation.
Here is a graphic illustrating man's contribution to the total greenouse effect based on observational data as opposed to computer models.
As you can see man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a whopping 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. that is one hundred and seventeen one thousanths of one percent of the greenhouse effect. Go try and scare little kids with AGW theory, not me.
We aren't debating that the earth is warming and that CO2 is rising, we're debating whether humans are causing it or not.
Mankind is responsible for a total of 0.278% of the total greenhouse effect. Do you grasp the insignifigance of two hundred and seventy eight one thousanths of one percent? There is no debate. The AGW scare is based on computer models which have a history of being wrong.
We need to create incentives for companies to move toward nuclear power and hydrogen-powered cars. The technology is nearly here; all we need to do is guide our economy in the right direction.
You can't create incentives that are equal to profit motive. We will not have these sources of energy until it becomes profitable to develop them and when it does become profitable, they will appear more quickly than you can imagine.
I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm in that part. I don't really think we're all going to die anytime soon, I just think global warming is going to cause undesirable living conditions.
Have you ever noticed that people (if they can afford to do so) tend to migrate from cold areas to warm areas? Exactly what is it about living in warm conditions that you believe will be "undesirable"?
Also more rainfall and unpredictable storm systems will wreak havoc on agriculture in places like Africa. The crops there are already at their warmest point possible to grow. But this would probably only be short term and you're right, agriculture would benefit. But there are other problems, like flooding due to the ice caps melting.
The weather is already unpredictable. Tell me, how much of the world's food production is presently grown in Africa? And are you trying to argue that other crops wouldn't grow in Africa? Look at your paleohistory. When the earth is in its warm periods, there were no deserts. The whole earth was green.
If the entire arctic ice cap melted today, the mean sea level would drop considerably. The arctic ice cap is floating, ice displaces more area than melted water. Melt the ice and sea level goes down. And since warmer temperatures will result in more rainfall, there is no assurace that melting the rest of the ice will result in any signifigant rise in sea level. The fact is that the earth has warmed to the point that no ice at all existed over and over and over and it is in the process of doing it again. With us, or without us.
One other thing.
Get yourself a new temperature chart to believe in. This one is based on computer modeling and not actual observational data. It is accepted, even by the high priests at the IPCC that the earth has warmed .6 degrees in the past century with 70% of that temperature rise happening in the first half of the past century. Your chart shows almost a .8 degree rise in the past century with over half the rise happening in the past 20 years. Just another example of believing what a computer tells you that you should have seen in lieu of what you have actually seen and measured.
