It will be several generations (at the least) before known sources of fossil fuels will begin to show signs of depletion. Why the rush to alternate renewable sources when there is clearly a supply problem (at affordable prices)?
Is fossil fuel-based "climate change" a ruse on a par with The Piltdown Man hoax or possibly the worst scientific hoax of all time?
Do records suppor the belief that atmospheric CO2 change causes climate change?
The US government's (NOAA's) records for atmospheric CO2 and changing merged land+ocean global average surface temperatures (GAST) over the period 1880 to 2018 are long term and appropriate to examine. If observed records dispute theory, which should be held suspect?
The net impact of greenhouse gas climate change theory maintains that as global average atmospheric CO2 changes, GAST will change accordingly. Growing CO2 creates warming, declining CO2 creates cooling. But is that what the records reveal?
Atmospheric CO2 was very slowly increasing at a fairly nominal rate for most of the 65 years from 1880 through 1944. However, from 1945 to 2018, atmospheric CO2's annual growth rate skyrocketed to more than 4.5 times the rate prior to 1945 leading to a sustained growth of atmospheric CO2 during the 74 years through 2018.
GAST warmed 0.42˚C (a rate of 0.0065˚C/year) during the 65 years of modest CO2 change while warming 50˚C (a rate of 0.0068˚C/year) during the 74 years of sustained rapid atmospheric CO2 growth in the latter 74 years, virtually identical climate change to radically different CO2 growth rates. The overall nominal warming rate over those 139 years (0.0066˚C/year) is typical for post Little Ice Age climate recovery.
NOAA's records for both both global CO2 growth and GAST over the most recent 139 years show compelling evidence that greenhouse gas climate change theory is invalid (when the evidence fails to match theory, the theory must be jettisoned, not the evidence).
In addition to the evidence in nature, there are sound reasons in physics that destroy the GHG climate change narrative. Whether through ignorance or design, journalists withhold such evidence from public knowledge.
Physics tells us that the more CO2 put into the atmosphere, the less the incremental increase impacts atmospheric temperature. We also know that the more CO2 put into the atmosphere, the greater the emissivity of the atmosphere to long wave radiation (IR), and this has a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere (some evidence of that cooling is beginning to be manifested today). So, yes, starting from zero, the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere not only creates a habitation for life to exist, it also dramatically warms the atmosphere. However, the ability to further warm the atmosphere diminishes exponentially to virtual nil as the impact of added CO2 cools the upper atmosphere.
What is also not widely shared is that while theoretically, CO2 and CH4 (methane) molecules are capable of vigorously resonating to certain wavelengths of IR, those wavelengths are very few and limited with only a portion overlapping the range of significant outbound IR radiation emitted by Earth's surface. Furthermore, water vapor literally saturates the wavelengths where CH4 could be reactive, further diminishing any possible contribution to atmospheric warming by CH4. Water vapor also dominate much of the CO2 reactive spectrum of the IR, further diminishing the capacity of CO2 to have a discernible impact on climate. So while, yes, CO2 and CH4 are theoretically more reactive to limited wavelengths of IR, they are both vastly more rare and dominated by the impact of atmospheric water vapor (H2O). On average atmospheric H2O is 15,000 ppm, or 1.5% of atmospheric volume. By comparison, CO2 is a trivial 0.041% of atmospheric volume and CH4 is a minute 0.0002% of atmospheric volume.
Can any reasonable person still believe the human-caused climate change narrative in light of (a) the 1880-2918 record described above, and (b) the atmospheric capacity of greenhouse gases to discernibly warm Earth's surface?
Every good scientist scrutinizes theory. Particularly theory that is held together by unsustainable hypotheses. Remember, science is never determined by consensus.
If anyone can explain the compelling contradiction to human-caused climate change theory in NOAA's global records spanning 1880 through 2019, please do.