Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it.
There is a concrete way to test whether the increased CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels. When photosynthesis takes CO2 out of the air and makes long chain hydrocarbons from them, the process tends to favor 12C over 13C. This means that fossil fuels are richer in 12C than abiotic sources like volcanic eruptions. Guess what? The increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is rich in 12C. The conclusion is obvious. Burning fossil fuels has increased CO2 to 400 ppm, about 30% higher than the natural levels seen in the ice records.
not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science.
The problem that we have is that people are using political propoganda to hide the facts about what is causing global climate change.
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities.
Denying that human activities are increasing levels of greenhouse gases, and therefore increasing global temps, is not a case of priorities. It is a case of dishonesty and a failure to accurately describe the facts.
Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define. There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual.
The Greenhouse Effect is not a prediction. It is an observed and known effect.
As you pointed out however, for UV to take prominence over infrared in causing global warming, it must be shown that its flux ( quantity per square meter ) is at least close to that of infrared. I have not determined that yet. If it can be shown that mid level UV flux striking earths surface in the late 20 th century was at least on the same order of magnitude as infrared during that time, would you be willing to say your confidence in co2 as the prime cause of global warming is less than 50% ?
It is the light coming from the Earth that matters.
Notice the Earth's thermal spectrum, and how it resides in the IR end of the spectrum. Notice also that CO2 absorbs IR radiation in that spectrum. This means that the heat radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the CO2. Part of that energy is converted straight to kinetic energy (i.e. temperature). The other part is emitted in a random direction which sometimes happens to be back at the Earth.
Therefore, CO2 absorbs heat that would otherwise radiate out into space. The more CO2 you have, the more you will trap. This is an inescapable physical truth.
The problem is I don't think it is getting warmer because of mankinds pollution. Which is believed to be a lot faster than what the sun is doing. With the sun we are talking billions of years. With man made problems I have not a clue as to what the time frame is. It is whatever those fellows that depend on the grant money to keep them in their lavish lifestyle says. Because if the grant money ceases they are out of a job. That tells me they have a real bias for promoting their product.
It has been defined as such by the powers that be who depend on GW grants for their livelihood.
It was defined by scientists in the 1800's, for crying out loud. Fourier was the first to describe how greenhouse gases trap heat, and this was in 1824.
Let me repeat that. 1824. That is when we discovered the greenhouse effect. There were no GW grants back then.
Want to try that again?
The physics behind the greenhouse effect are solid, and have been around for nearly 200 years. You can't simply close your eyes and wish it away.
"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
There is no need to imagine radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide when you have had almost 50 years of roughly 3% extra ultraviolet B radiation warming the ocean. The ultraviolet B radiation is roughly 1.5% of total irradiance from the sun.
How are we "imagining" the greenhouse effect? Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will trap more heat. Period. It is an inescapable fact of physics. If we have more heat coming in due to higher input from the Sun, then more of that heat will be trapped compared to an atmosphere with 25% less CO2. That would be a double whammy.
Given that there is such a push for change right now how screwed are we really we are at 1.2 + got here from 0.9 + last year. And given that there is a tendency to be less alarmist then you should while doing research in global warming, a tenancy of even the worst models falling off the mark to actual measurements are we done for ?
Would you walk into a laboratory and drink the first liquid you came across? Perhaps you would grab a saline solution and be fine. Perhaps not. Is it worth the risk?
What we know is that we did very, very well with the climate from the last several thousand years. We also know that infrastructure and political power is based on certain regions having a certain climate. What happens if we change all that?
I couldn't see any obvious flaws in this article and it has a short list of references at the end.
I have found that type of argument to be the most compelling when trying to discuss the topic. The basic science is pretty straightforward and accessible to most scientific laypeople. It really comes down to the simple fact of temperatures increasing as you put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is an inescapable physical fact.
In addition to the material in that article, we could also point to changes in the 13C/12C ratio. Most fossil fuel comes from photosynthesizers, and the process of photosynthesis favors the lighter isotope 12C. Plants are rich in 12C compared to the atmosphere around them. Over the last 150 years the amount of 12C has increased, indicating that the cause of the CO2 increase is fossil fuel use (in combination with the 14C data).
Another simple fact is historic CO2 values. Ice records from Greenland and Antarctica cover several glacial and interglacial cycles, and they show CO2 bouncing between 175 and 300 ppm. Prior to the industrial revolution we were at about 280 ppm, the normal for the peak of an interglacial period. We are now at 400 ppm. That is 30% higher than at any time in the ice core record for the last million years.
Is it just a coincidence that we see the biggest spike of CO2 in the last 1 million years from a natural process at the same time we are burning gigatons of fossil fuels? It takes more denial than most people have to ignore the rather obvious connection between fossil fuels and record CO2 levels.
This just in: Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
Since Arrhenius told us more than 100 years ago that this would happen, it's a bit like finding a connection between drinking beer and higher rates of urine production. We pumped a bunch of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the result was warmer temps. It would be much more stunning if temperature have not increased.
Absent the science, and the government report is simply a report of the consensus among scientists, I would suggest that the fact that humans are the driver of global client change is not obvious.
There is a natural cycle that drives changes in climate, so you do need to study the naturally occurring drivers of climate to assess what percentage of the change in climate is due to humans. What wasn't in doubt is that human activity was trapping more heat in the atmosphere than natural processes alone, and all we needed for that was measurements in atmospheric CO2.
Actually, a lot more is required than that. The current research dismisses a number of possible natural processes, some of which are terrestrial and others which are not. The science behind the current consensus is non-trivial.
Abiotic production of atmospheric CO2 is ruled out by the shift in carbon isotopes which clearly pegs the recent increases as a result of burning fossil fuels. If there were natural processes that were also raising temps, it would still not make our contribution to warming go away, it would simply add to it.