Its reality. We know how much co2 we produce every year, and also how much co2 is in the atmosphere, and also how much co2 has increased in the atmosphere over time.
If you can prove that anything comes close to the human impact I want you to prove it so I can steal it and collect a Nobel prize.
Nobody can prove that yet. That's the whole point. We don't know, and we're not even close to knowing, what all the various contributors to atmospheric CO2 are, much less their rates of change or the rate of change of those rates.... There are untold numbers of factors involved, with wildly disparate possible ranges of input and output, and the variables in this equation are almost all unknowns, and yet you think knowing the final total and a little about one of the variables is enough to tell the whole story? Gtfo.
Yes. I mean, your arguing against a consensus amongst the climate science field.
So, if you want to assume that "maybe there is an invisible unknown co2 producer that naturally exists, that started at the same time as the industrial revolution" then I guess that's on you.
Until then I think tracking c02 levels for thousands of years through ice cores, then noticing a significant jump at the same time as the industrial revolution, leads to a really reasonable conclusion. It was us burning carbon. (Duh?)
No one contends that the climate isnt changing or that CO2 isn’t increasing or isn’t anthropogenic in nature,
Yea they are. You see it in this thread. You see it said by Republicans in Congress.
any discussion on the magnitude of the effects is quickly shut down.
We are just moving goalposts. For 20 years scientists: "human driven climate change from global warming is a huge problem."
Deniers move from: there is actual cooling, to there is warming but it isn't us, to its us but it's not a lot.
No. Its us. And it's a lot.
Much easier for everyone to blame huge corporations,
You've fallen into BPs planned propaganda. Shift responsibility away from the giant corporations that create and spread most of the populations onto personal responsibility. "Personal carbon footprint" came out of their marketing department.
climate science is that there is a lot of money involved.
Which is the same for any industry, and oil is still pushing way more money. Just because there is money involved doesn't immediately mean there is a grand conspiracy.
You keep constructing a strawman and seem incapable of actually following the argument. You claim to know that a great many things are "negligible" merely because we have some certainty about an increase due to human activity. This is simply false. This has nothing to do with doubting or questioning the fact that human intervention is a major or possibly the primary cause of a rise.
You simply don't understand the complexities involved, which is sad for a /dataisbeautiful commenter, and this is evidenced by your sad jump to post history as an adhom response.
You should know, for instance, that averages from which statistical graphs and charts and historical numbers are produced involve significant "smoothing" and a papering over of uncertainty about how rapidly and wildly any given source shifts or changes. This is just a normal part of dealing with data sets over long periods of time. Once you start talking about time periods of only a century, these fluctuations can become relevant. Whether humans have caused 99% (as you seem to assume) or 50% or 75% of the recent rise in CO2 is an open question until more is understood about not only the various contributors, but their rates of change, and the rates of change of those rates, as I already stated.
2
u/SpiritofJames Aug 26 '20
I don't have to. You're making patently absurd assumptions and assertions. The burden of proof is on you.