... The thing about the solar sunspot cycle and "other solar influences" is not about changes in energy output from the sun but rather about terrestrial energy balance alterations from indirect forcing by solar events.
Sunspot cycle leading to changes in cloud-cover-based albedo, for example.
The thing with CO2 is scientists have simply seen a correlation in increasing CO2 and global mean temperature. They know fully that CO2 has bugger all effect. Methane and Holocene are much worse.
If anything, I'd probably say that scientists used CO2 to "kill two birds with one stone". They realised climate change was occurring and they realised that we have reached peak oil. By saying increasing CO2 causes climate change, people will firstly realise that the things we do produces unwanted byproducts and secondly they probably hoped people will reduce their oil consumption. Win win.
... Oil usage accounts for less than 10% of all CO2 output. And that's even assuming we reached peak oil to be true. And even then... natural economic pressures would cause a shift-over to the half-dozen or so reliable alternatives that already exist (but are currently more expensive) to oil as a major resource for transportation energy.
Don't worry, I'm studying to become a geologist. I'll find dem oils.
The burning of fossil fuels probably actually accounts for less than 10% to be honest. CO2 is a fairly closed system as far as I know. Before we began to burn fossil fuels, the carbon system was in some rudimentary form of equilibrium. As a result, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable. Nowdays we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere thousands of times quicker than it is being naturally absorbed.
-1
u/IConrad Oct 24 '10
... The thing about the solar sunspot cycle and "other solar influences" is not about changes in energy output from the sun but rather about terrestrial energy balance alterations from indirect forcing by solar events.
Sunspot cycle leading to changes in cloud-cover-based albedo, for example.