Of course it can be disproven though I doubt you can. First take an atmosphere sample and show me that CO2 is not approaching ~400 ppm. Not likely to do that. Then measure the amount of CO2 released by burning the calculated total world fossil fuel usage. Not likely to prove that wrong either, though you are welcome to try. Then take some soil samples and ocean samples and measure carbon. Now explain why the worlds soil carbon is radically reduced, and the dissolved CO2 in the oceans is rising. Or prove those measurements are wrong. Lastly prove the physics experiments wrong that measured the greenhouse insulating effect of CO2.
Sure it's rising and we have
The Pause for nearly two decades.
I gave you a whole list of ways to falsify AGW and your answer is that?
You do understand the "pause" is a pause in the acceleration of the rate of increase right? Primarily due to the ocean sink acting like a buffer. But the heat energy is still there. It hasn't actually stopped increasing, and we humans like a frog on slow boil. You have to know that. It's on that graph you keep posting.
Carbon Dioxide -- Summary PDF
"A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa. In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later."
Yes. That's what is called a positive feedback. It's is why the climate scientists are worried. If AGW triggers the same effect that (as you admit) is seen in every previous case, then it will be too late. Even going zero emissions won't stop the CO2 from rising for 400 to a 1000 years or more. No one really knows how long, but it will be geological timeframes. At that point, if it happens, civilization as we know it is screwed. There will hopefully be a few survivors, but not modern civilization. It will likely be similar to when the Mayans abandoned all their cities and fled into the jungles to exist as hunter gatherers, only instead of one civilization, it will likely be the whole world.
Note this ...
"even very high CO2 concentrations - some as much as 100 times greater than those of the past century - appear to benefit earth's vegetation."
Not only did I note it, I mentioned it. That is the biological carbon cycle. Nature has a built in self correcting buffer to handle fluctuations in natural emissions. That is part of the buffer mechanism. Potentially at full functionality they could handle the excess CO2 with that very mechanism you mentioned. Unfortunately we humans have made such an impact on the world's ecosystems that the relatively small emissions we have from burning fossil fuels is still too large for the highly degraded ecosystems to buffer. Not because emissions are huge compared to the total natural global carbon cycle, but instead because we have largely destroyed the functionality of that ecosystem service with agriculture, desertification and deforestation.
As an analogy, imagine a pack mule that can carry a 300 pound load (a very strong mule). Now what would happen if that mule bruised a hoof on a stone? It won't kill it. The mule will heal. But it can't carry the same load. It needs to rest and recover before it can carry those loads again. Ecosystems are analogous in that they also can't function at top ecosystem services efficiency until the ecosystem heals and recovers from the disturbance that "injured" it. Hard for a tall grass prairie that stretched as far as the eye can see in every direction to function as a sequestration sink when the prairie is gone and it is replaced with a method of agriculture that is an emissions source instead of a sequestration sink. So what if the tiny % remaining actually grows 10% better? There is less than 3% of it left. So what it functions like 3.3%? It isn't enough. Same thing can be said about the whole planet. All the terrestrial ecosystems on the whole planet are stressed, some more than others, but over all at least 40% dramatically reduced like our tall grass prairies. Don't even get me started on deforestation. Massive issues there as well.
Who knows if fossil fuel emissions would cause AGW if all our ecosystems were functioning at full efficiency? I personally doubt it. They are small compared to the total biological cycle. But that's conjecture. What we know for sure, by observation and measurement, is that they are too much for the ecosystems to handle in their current degraded state. That can't be denied by any thinking person.
And that didn't happen in the last century ???? Why NOT ???
.)
