Perhaps the key issue is our earth including soil/ water/ air/ etc has been contaminated by various micro-particles that are known or unknown to us already for too long? All the Trees cannot have the same fresh and pure air like it was before in order to reduce the adverse impact by CO2 anymore? The whole Eco-system has been gradually damaged daily by our unhealthy living system - producing too much waste daily, not just CO2? Or, perhaps the CO2 has been the effect due to some other factors such as micro-whatever-beads rather than the cause? Plastic or else? LOL
Was the CO2 increased in the previous research and measures mainly due to humans daily breathing caused by population growth? Or, the heat produced by daily movements? LOL https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/
Let's not forget the population growth of farm animals following the human population growth? The waste issue?
imo, there has been a lack of research in systematic measures about how much environmental cost for each manufacturing or farming product. This environmental cost should include the process of producing it as well as the after-life cost impacting the environment. A $1 product for consumers could cost the society $2 after-life cost to heal the environment, and another $2 for long-term environment cost due to damaging environment during manufacturing process. Another manufacturer after proper investment in manufacturing process and technologies could cost $0.5 after-life cost and $0.5 societal cost during manufacturing, while selling it at $3. This kind of information should be marked on each product after certification. Some consumers should be free to choose the preferred one. That could enable some manufacturers gradually to improve/invest their production process voluntarily. Slowly disqualify the manufacturers constantly showing poor performances? Not impossible! ?
" We’ve calculated the environmental cost of a loaf of bread – and what to do about it February 28, 2017 " * We've calculated the environmental cost of a loaf of bread – and ... theconversation.com/weve-calculated-the-environmental-cost-of-a-loaf-of-bread-and-what-to-do-about-it-73643 - Cached - Similar 27 Feb 2017 ... ... in the soil. For crops to grow big and fast, they need nitrogen, usually through fertiliser. It is the key ingredient of intensive agriculture. Without fertiliser, either we produce less food or we use much more land to produce the same amount, at greater economic and environmental cost. That is the fix we are in.https://theconversation.com/weve-ca...a-loaf-of-bread-and-what-to-do-about-it-73643 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-017-0648-4 * Measuring the economic cost of environmental ... - WHO/Europe www.euro.who.int/.../environment.../measuring-the-economic-cost-of-environmental-impacts-on-human-health - Cached - Similar 5 Jun 2014 ... There is an economic cost of the impact of a polluted environment on health. It is not only the cost of lives lost, but also the cost of years lived with a disability, of lost days of work or school, of chronic diseases to cure. 25 experts in air quality, health economics and environmental sciences as well as ...
I very much do suggest you talk to CERN. The conCERNing thing about this misleading opinion piece is that the CERN study does not show cosmic rays are connected to global warming. How keen denialists are to pick up on fragments of information and twist them out of all proportion and context into creating as much misinformation as its possible to fit on a page. Cosmic rays by themselves simply don't have enough effect to start cloud formations at the rate observed in the atmosphere. As CERN confirms, emphasis mine: "Though this most recent experiment doesn’t really answer the question of whether cosmic rays are having an impact on our weather, it does open the door to more research." The CERN study itself comes to no conclusions and says nothing whatsoever about the effects human CO2 emissions are having on the planet.
Already done. It's a basic scientific principle . You are, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "show us peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming" when it is a part of that basic scientific principle. CO2 cools the upper atmosphere not the lower. Science does not show 'us' CO2 will cool the lower atmosphere. Science does show excessive artificial man made CO2 is not good for the upper atmosphere. Too cool is not good like too warm is not good. The whole of your denial argument is based upon misunderstandings misinterpretations misconceptions and fake information held in comments like "co2 can cool". Next you'll tell me it is. Yup thought so. CO2 is warming due to basic scientific principles, leads atmospheric levels up. That's exactly what leading the next cycle is! What do you imagine is leading in the cycle warming here: - man made CO2 - warming - man made CO2 - warming - man made CO2 - warming. Which leads which now Cooling can only lead to 1/3 at best of - "atmospheric levels of co2 down". You have to rely on other things to do the rest which won't happen because the temperature is being disproportionately raised due to gigatons of man made CO2 being artificially pumped continuously into the atmosphere. Yes, and taking into account changing levels of natural co2, negative feedbacks, positive feedbacks and sinks and probably off gassing,, the scientific evidence clearly shows they cannot account for the sudden steep rise in global temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when coincidentally, man made CO2 started getting pumped into the atmosphere.
No you have not shown us even one publishing climate scientist denying man made global warming, because there are none.
Tim Patterson is one... Tim KNOWS that it's not man who causes global warming or climate change or weather dysphoria or whatever you swill merchants are selling these days. He knows it's that the vast majority of Earth's climate cycles are a result of natural processes... Boom...