I'm not blaming you, a university course of Biology could do wonders for you
Many people without the neccecary knowledge, dont understand things, and reject them, untill they obtain that knowledge
Its a dangerous thing you mention there tbh. Because its not that easy.
First of all, CO2 is a pretty strong greenhouse gas. Not as strong as methane, but pretty strong on its own.
Emissions per year are a wrong measurement, you need to look at assimilation.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is produced by burning fossil enerergy, on top of other CO2 producing reactions such as daytime respiration for Eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Each year, a certain amount of CO2 is assimilated by eukaryotes and a variety of bacteria, for growth and energyproduction.
As long as all the produced CO2 is assimilated, there is not a problem. However, since the start of the industrial revolution, there has been excess.
Because of excess, this CO2 is allowed to build up,wich increases the athmosphetic concentration. This can be seen in the followign image:
What we learn from this image, is that the increased emissions per year, are speeding up the concentration increase.
Now, global temperature is not a good measurement in this case. Global warming is something to be extrapolated over centuries. A timeperiod as short as 16 years is far to small, because of the great many buffers the earth has. However, as you mention, solar activity has a direct impact, and this gives the very dangerous wrong implementation of the facts you just made.
The ice caps, buffer water temperature, and they directly influence the jet streams, wich is the true factor for climate. El Nino is a phenomenon caused by jet streams. And in the recent decades its occuring more often.
Thanks to the gigantic capacity of water to retain temperature, a period as short as 2 decades, could show a relative halt in increasing temperature. It will be counteracted by a speedup of the melting of icecaps and slight changes in jet streams. But slight changes, can have greater results.
As can be seen here, a clear speed up of the melting, in the same time period where you said that the temperature stopped rising.
But are the enviromentalists right ? Nope. They mostly try to shock people with extreme scenario's, usually not academically underbuild.
Are the "anti enviromental lobby" right ? Nope. They are the ones who use blatant propaganda, and ignore the issue because of profit maximalisation.
Who is right ? the academics.
Academic studies have a clear list of the consequences for each 0.5 degree celcuis rise of global temperature.
They have made the models that link global warming to greenhouse gas effect, the buffers , and the importance of ice caps.
Before the ice caps melt, we'll see mostly nothing. Perhaps some bad harvests and rainseasons. Most cynical model shows the caps to have melted at 2040.
But why is all this so very important ? Because it only goes one way. And this is very critical.
We can do what we do, and accumulate greenhouse gasses in the athmosphere and have the place warm up.
But we cannot reverse this. There is no way we can get rid of these greenhouse gasses. There is no way we can revert global warming.
the most disturbing, is that there is a point of no return. This point means if the temperature rises above that given point, it will keep accelerating and there is nothing we can do anymore.
Sources : University courses of "sustainable technology" and "enviromental remediation", and lectures of various profs at the kekule cyclus of 2012 and 2014 at University of Antwerp.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Balotellit is as real as Belgium.
thanks brother
