Ratking said:
How do we know that the "natural" co2 production is stable? Both in production and use?
It's not. However, there are bounds to how much carbon can be "mobilized" by any event, whether climatic, astronomic (meteor impact), due to vulcanism etc. Some is available (i.e. carbon in animals and plants, carbon in the atmosphere) and some is not (i.e. coal that's a mile underground, carbon in limestone.) Normally carbon in the biosphere is used by organisms which cycle it around and around. Dead organisms pile up and get buried as carbonaceous (coal, oil, limestone, marble etc) deposits. This removes carbon from the ecosphere. Slow processes (breakdown of carbon bearing rock mainly) re-release it into the ecosphere. These two processes keep the system more or less in balance.
The problems we have been seeing lately have been due to our tendency to dig up older carbon deposits and re-release them into the atmosphere. That's why we see CO2 levels rising so rapidly; the existing processes to recapture carbon are no longer sufficient to deal with the increase of carbon dioxide.
There are records of much higher co2 gas earlier in earths history, how did it manage to sink in to other forms, since the amount we have now is so much lower?
See above.
What stops nature from using those mechanisms now?
Those mechanisms are still working - and in many cases (since they are driven by CO2 partial pressures) working ever faster. They are simply insufficient to compensate for our release of ~40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. If we could reduce that, those mechanisms would be able to keep up.
How do we know that the ice cores containing co2 is correct? What I mean is, with what credibility and certainty can you say that the ice core can give a good reading with a 50 or 100 year resolution? What if the co2 is "leaking" through the layers?
They are backed up by measurements like radioisotope levels, tree ring records, sedimentation records etc. Any one record alone is suspect - but when half a dozen agree with a high degree of certainty, the reliability of all those measurements improve.
Can you give me an example of a few innovations that can justify the extremely costly experiment the western governments are doing regarding the "green revolution"?
Solar for 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US; 2.4c/kwhr elsewhere. (Abu Dhabi)
Wind for 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.
(All the above are _unsubsidized_ costs BTW, per Lazard 2016 LCOE report.)
Smart grids able to handle unreliable power.
Cars that get, on average, 24mpg in the US, up from 15mpg in 1980. (Also results in cheaper gas, which is a nice side effect.)
Air in Los Angeles that is between 50% and 95% cleaner (depending on pollutant) than it was in 1980.
Rivers, lakes and oceans that are cleaner. When I went to school in Boston, if you fell in the Charles River it meant a trip to the infirmary. Now it's almost clean enough to swim in.
I see windmills, solar panels, and a few other projects, many of those have failed, but they will stay as an example in history of some of the most wasteful projects ever made. Money stolen by the government from the people, wastefully given to "scientist" and politicians. Since time is money, I see this as a great injustice(I wonder whaot your stance is)
I have a solar power system that generates all my electric power, and also charges my two electric vehicles. So I don't see them as useless or wasteful.
Think how much this money could have done in the right hands, or just in the actual owners hands.
We could have had more . . . wars? Bought more hamburgers?
Money for scientific research is some of the most important money we spend. It has led to affordable solar and wind, to breakthroughs in power transmission and energy efficiency, to new medical treatments, new batteries, new ways to communicate and send data, new discoveries on other planets and throughout the universe. It will someday lead to the holy grails people are seeking today - a cure for cancer, another home for humanity, a way to clean up pollution, to reduce poverty and to help spread food, education and medical care to all peoples.
This is just the US, much more money have been draind out of peoples pockets, with nothing to show for it. I don't understand how people don't riot because of this injustice
Probably because the people of the US want it and benefit from it. 65% of Americans want to prioritize developing alternative energy over developing more fossil fuel sources.