If atmospheric CO2 increases due to solar system induced warming, who will judge if emission mandates are met?

According to "Inconvenience Truth" the world only had until 2008 to stop global warming. Now it is TOO LATE.

90% of humanity will die in floods, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards, tsunamis and earthquakes.

Only the Lear jet people like Michael Moore and Al Gore will survive the coming climate apocalypse in their underground mansions.

Well frankly the concern is vastly reducing the CO2 we produce so the there will actually6be A livable planet in 100 years. We can't really do much about the damage we have already done. But we can take action now to keep things from getting worse as time goes by. Personally, I believe most of the planets in our solar system are responsible for climate change since they are very very cold.

have a warm day

The rate of increase due to natural global warming IS NOT greater than the rate at which man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere today. Where in the world did you get that from? The atmosphere is increasing at a rate of, on average, currently 2 parts per million per year.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

This is roughly equal to 15.8 billion tons per year. Human emissions, as of 2012, account for 35 billion tons.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

Historically while atmospheric CO2 increase has been a consequence of global warming per Henry's Law and LE Chatelier's Principal the addition of 30-35 billion tons of CO2 annually has increased the partial pressure of that CO2 in the atmosphere and, as a consequence of those two laws as partial pressure is a factor, the oceans are attempting to maintain equilibrium by absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting. This is why both the ocean and atmospheric are increasing in CO2 content and why the oceans are decreasing in pH.

http://www.bu-eh.org/uploads/Main/doney_ann_rev_pr...

>If atmospheric CO2 increases due to solar system induced warming<

You did not even manage to get cause and effect correct in your question dufess.

No one is saying "atmospheric CO2 increases due to solar system induced warming".

What is the evidence indicating CO2 increases as a result of warming? Source or GTFO.

The increase in CO2 during a glacial maximum is driven by the reduced biomass, which relates to increased ice cover and lower temperatures making the planet less hospitable to plant diversity. Vostok data indicates CO2 increases BEFORE the glacial maxima, then dips after the ice retreat begins (as increased photosynthesis means CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and carbon is stored as biomass).

"The overall correlation between our CO2 and CH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature is remarkable (r^2 ¼ 0:71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes. We have calculated the direct radiative forcing corresponding to the CO2, CH4 and N2O changes. The largest CO2 change, which occurs between stages 10 and 9, implies a direct radiative warming of 0.75C. Adding the effects of CH4 and N2O at this termination increases the forcing to 0.95C (here we assume that N2O varies with climate as during termination I^37). This initial forcing is amplified by positive feedbacks associated with water vapour, sea ice, and possibly clouds (although in a different way for a ‘doubled CO2’ situation than for a glacial climate). The total glacial–interglacial forcing is important (~3Wm^-2), representing 80% of that corresponding to the difference between a ‘doubled CO2’ world and modern CO2 climate. Results from various climate simulations make it reasonable to assume that greenhouse gases have, at a global scale, contributed significantly (possibly about half, that is, 2–3C) to the globally averaged glacial–interglacial temperature change."

Petit,et al (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

(See figures 3 and 4 for timings of ice/CO2 peaks).

Even if you were correct about how quickly atmospheric CO2 increases from natural warming, and even if we were currently experiencing natural warming (as far as scientists can tell, without anthropogenic carbon, we'd be cooling slightly right now), we can still measure the quantity of fossil fuels burned, and we know how much CO2 is generated by a given quantity of a given fossil fuel. So, we can do the math.

Well, first of all it's quite trivial to measure the output of the sun.

It's not causing any warming.

So, now that we've eliminated the sun, so there goes any natural amount added.

It's also trivial to find out where the CO2 is from using its isotope signature. Most of the increase is organic and very, very old. Fossil fuels.

So we know the sun is doing diddly and the extra CO2 is largely from fossil fuels. So your question is meaningless.

We can tell how much a nation is emitting from the amount of hydrocarbon fuels that said nation is burning. 12 tonnes (1 megamole) of carbon burnt puts 44 tonnes (1 megamole) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of hydrocarbon fuels burnt is one reason why we know that nature has been absorbing carbon dioxide up til now. If and when the seas become a net source of carbon dioxide, we will still know how much of the carbon dioxide is coming from humans.

Emission mandates will never be met. If that occurred the powers would have no way to tax us and take away our liberties.

Weise Ente gave the correct answer.