To what purpose are you inviting comment?

I`d appreciate an expert (critical) view on how the human is handling the problem. Is the voice of scientists too weak? Or maybe the problem is overreacted? Or maybe experts can manager the situation, and no help from aside is needed?

I tried to open some discussions concerning bio fuels:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_the_ecological_efficiency_of_a_biofuel_is_used_to_give

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_You_please_suggest_a_study

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dear_would_You_be_interested_in_a_heretical_sort_of_question

but questions remaining.

As known from analysis of antarctic ice, the ppm V of CO 2 used to be in range 170...300. About 800 000 years.

Regards.

Tiit Marrandi,

The exponential growth of greenhouse gas concentrations are illustrated by Mauna Loa measurements showing record ppm of Carbon dioxide.

It is no coincidence that global temperatures are rising also at exponential rates showing the validity of Global Warming Hypothesis that greenhouse gases from human activities is driving climate change (see IPCC summary documents).

The record increases of both greenhouse gas and temperature show we are not doing much effectively to curb our fossil fuel use.

Both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the sequestration of greenhouse gases will be needed to adjust our planet system into one which run away global warming will accelerate.

The initiation of biofuel program for the tropics which generate biochar for remediating massive areas of acid soil infertility is probably the best approach to making real progress on these issues.

Confirming this and figuring how this will paid for is the glitch as I see it. The massive ability of soils to capture greenhouse gases and store them beneficially has not been at the forefront and is much under appreciated.

Global temperature values have been widely recorded for over 200 years. These thermometer readings are remarkably precise. Now if you look at last 6 years we have the 6 highest years in overall global temperature. To information on 2019 is not completely in yet but it looks like another record breaker. What is the probability such a distribution would occur by chance? In one year the highest temperature would have a prob of 1/250 by chance. So if we use laws probability and put a low ball probability of 1/100 the probability of 6 consecutive years of hottest temperature would be 1/100 times 1/100 times 1/100 times 1/100 times 1/100 times 1/100. The probability of this by chance 1/1,000,000, 000, 000 or about 1 in a trillion. Now for statistical probability if the chance prob is 5/100 it called statistically significant and 1/100 is highly statistically significant. So the probability of our current situation is highly, highly, highly, highly highly, highly significant as being not a random difference. If this is not random the other explanation is it has a nonrandom cause. At this point it is hard to define our situation as a random occurrence this leaves the prediction that greenhouse gases are causing a real difference which is not random but indeed is related to combustion of fossil fuels. The Chinese are suggesting the climate change damages are 380 billion USD with greater values for USA and Europe. The question then that should be asked is not if we can afford to address climate change from greenhouse gases but how can we not afford to address these issues.