Actually we do know how much of the anomalies are due to human influence, and that would be most of them. Solar influence is negligible, CO2 is negligible, but pouring down plastic while allowing the earth to innately microwave the surface - is not. The earth is roasting, the fire is fueled by man and that's a fact borne of the last 50 years.

If I wanted to subtly cull the populace, I'd produce 'climate change' as it'd be pretty hard to trace disasters to me while people are still dazed and recovering.

The earth is roasting, the fire is fueled by man and that's a fact. — Shamshir

The Earth is not roasting, it's in the process of warming up a by a few degrees. The Earth has been warmer in the past, and colder. And warmer. Venus is roasting. Yes, the current trend is mainly because of human activity. No, that doesn't mean we will roast like Venus.

Hyperbole doesn't help. Life will adapt as it always has and so will humans. We just want to avoid the more difficult scenarios.

Increased storm volatility is the forecast for this century. Further out: it depends on how much more CO2 and methane is emitted.

The Earth is not roasting, it's in the process of warming up a by a few degrees. — Marchesk

Roasts are slow, so come and remind me again in three years.

Roasts are slow, so come and remind me again in three years. — Shamshir

The warming is about 0.05-0.07 degrees celsius every three years. So a slow roast indeed. Climate scientists would like for emissions to drop to zero by 2050, or have that amount removed from the atmosphere to stay under a 2 degree warming since pre-industrial times to avoid more severe weather and greater sea level rise. Plus it's harder on some species or biomes like coral reefs.

But realistically, we will probably have to contend with a 2-3 degree warming, unless we can offset it with lots of trees and carbon sequestering.

Also realistically, we will have to accept that a certain loss of biodiversity is inevitable. EO Wilson put it at up to 50% by the end of the century. He called it the bottleneck before population peaks and starts to decline, and technology becomes more sustainable.

On a positive note, NASA recently revealed that the Earth is on a greening trend. We actually have more plant cover than in the recent past.

See this language is what fuels skepticism about taking radical action to avert climate catastrophe. It comes off sounding like an excuse to implement a preferred system by certain leftists. If you read any of the comments on Reddit related to climate change, you will see all sorts of things about eating the rich, destroying capitalism, and forcing a one world government on everyone. — Marchesk

My point there was easy to misunderstand, apologies for that. To clarify, I don't advocate we Institute global communism to stop climate change. I just think that stopping climate change before a lot of significant damage has already happened will require a social mobilization on that scale. Otherwise, governments will keep appeasing the powers that be until either the damage becomes too great to ignore, or they collapse.

It will also sound potentially threatening to the mainstream. Who wants to be forced to drastically reduce their lifestyle? Do the developing countries want to be told they can't continue developing by the developed countries? — Marchesk

No-one wants that, obviously, but at this point it's necessary to prevent very serious damage to the biosphere, the consequences of which are hard to predict.

And how do we know that such radical economic and political polices won't be the wrong action? Maybe the only way forward is to adapt with technological innovation and encourage the markets to transition, instead of trying to force everyone to consume less, which would likely cause a worldwide depression, which means less innovation. — Marchesk

That's kinda what moderates are trying to do, but even relatively modest, market based approaches like taxing green house gasses are mostly failing because the political will isn't there.

Relying on innovation to prevent disaster is hugely risky. The more we do right now, the less fucked we are if innovation doesn't show up on time.

just think that stopping climate change before a lot of significant damage has already happened will require a social mobilization on that scale. — Echarmion

Okay, but what does that look like?

No-one wants that, obviously, but at this point it's necessary to prevent very serious damage to the biosphere, the consequences of which are hard to predict. — Echarmion

The problem is that if nobody wants their lifestyle drastically altered, then there won't be political will to implement those policies. Let's imagine the greenest democrat wins 2020 and tries to implement some serious CO2 and consumption reduction measures. How do you see that going?

That's kinda what moderates are trying to do, but even relatively modest, market based approaches like taxing green house gasses are mostly failing because the political will isn't there. — Echarmion

Then it won't be there for anything more extreme. Politicians will simply lose elections and fail to convince their colleagues.

Yet we see a steady upward trend from where the graphs start (~1880), including several spikes, which would question the anomalous nature of what we observe today. I'm curious how one would account for that. — Tzeentch

I don't see how the spikes, that is the fluctuation which is normal in complex systems, "question the anomalous nature". You can clearly see the trend. That is your answer - the trend is anomalous (and dangerous).

Also, how would one account for some major criticisms of the climate change narrative, some of which are addressed here: — Tzeentch

Haven't had time to watch that yet, but the obvious first question is why we, as laymen, feel qualified to question the overwhelming scientific consensus based on watching a YouTube video? If we're basing our views about empirical questions on evidence, an overwhelming scientific consensus ought to be extremely good evidence, no?

I don't necessarily believe everything that is said by 'climate skeptics'. Similarly I don't necessarily believe everything I'm told by 'climate hysterics'. I observe a narrative and a counter-narrative, both of which are quite likely fueled by political agenda. — Tzeentch

I don't really understand this position. The agenda of the climate change deniers is pretty obvious. They want to make more money. What do the "hysterics" stand to gain?

I have an inkling you're going to say "governments wanting more power", but the majority of governments is either indifferent or openly hostile to the "hysterics". You'd think that if China, the US, Russia or India thought they could control people with the fear of climate change, they'd push for action.

I don't see how the spikes, that is the fluctuation which is normal in complex systems, "question the anomalous nature". You can clearly see the trend. That is your answer - the trend is anomalous (and dangerous). — Echarmion

The trend, including the spikes, has started to occur before global carbon emissions were anywhere near the levels they are today. That undermines the assertion that mankind's carbon emissions are the primary cause.

Haven't had time to watch that yet, but the obvious first question is why we, as laymen, feel qualified to question the overwhelming scientific consensus based on watching a YouTube video? If we're basing our views about empirical questions on evidence, an overwhelming scientific consensus ought to be extremely good evidence, no? — Echarmion

The video features scientists that explain why they question the common narrative, using facts, graphs, etc. And there are tons like it. There is no shortage of scientists disputing the common climate change narrative.

What further fuels my skepticism is cases where climate skeptics are silenced and/or lose their jobs because of their concerns. Or how the fact that Michael Mann and his "icehockey graph" was exposed as being a fraud (in court), is kept almost completely silent.

What do the "hysterics" stand to gain? — Echarmion

Heck if I know. What I do know is that it isn't the large powers who are paying the bill for their own pollution. It's mostly small countries and toothless nations like the EU who do.

The only way is to adapt. But I also don't believe it will end civilization. Humans are very good generalists, and we have technology. We survived an ice age with stone-aged tools and migrated all over the planet thousands of years ago. — Marchesk

Yes: adaptable humans will make it IF they are located in northern climates, are not too numerous, have lots of resources, and have viable economies to produce the machinery to survive. The number of people fitting those specs are small, in relation to the rest of the planet.

There are definite limits to adaptation. Take the "wet-bulb-temperature": it's a measure of how much heat a human can lose at a given temperature and humidity level. When the wet-bulb-temperature exceeds our capacity to lose heat, we die--quickly, from heat stroke. It will become increasingly difficult to perform agricultural work in tropic and sub-tropical areas--in this century, in 30 years.

Most crops do not do well in high heat. Heavier rain makes it difficult to till soil, plant, and harvest. Beneficial and harmful insect populations are falling. A lot of food is dependent on pollinating by bees, a group not doing too well (and not just domesticated honey bees). Plant breeding is an option, of course, and one we had better hope works, but it's difficult to breed adaptable plants for rapidly changing conditions.

Good weather for growing cereals is being pushed northward; there is a lot of land not currently being used for crops that will become available. Unfortunately, most recently thawed northern land is going to be altogether unsuitable for growing much of anything. Thawed tundra will need thousands of years to turn into soil.

Adaptation will require a lot of energy use which will probably come from coal and oil, which will aggravate global warming. Cooling already uses around 10% of world energy production.

IF we were going to make it through ingenious adaptation, we would already be installing the massive new technology. I don't see that happening. Major technological system changes usually take around 50 years to invent, design, develop, and deploy.

Okay, but what does that look like? — Marchesk

The mobilization? Or the measures? The former, as I said, would probably look like a global revolution, people going on strike and electing "green" parties with absolute majorities.

The problem is that if nobody wants their lifestyle drastically altered, then there won't be political will to implement those policies. Let's imagine the greenest democrat wins 2020 and tries to implement some serious CO2 and consumption reduction measures. How do you see that going? — Marchesk

It will only work if there is enough social cohesion and agreement about the necessity of the measures. Societies, including democratic ones, have made all kinds of sacrifices for war in the past. If we manage to treat climate change like a war, or some religious conflict, psychologically, people will do things they would otherwise not want to do for the cause.

Then it won't be there for anything more extreme. Politicians will simply lose elections and fail to convince their colleagues. — Marchesk

Exactly. Hence why I say significant social mobilisation is required for anything to move. Humans in general are conservative, institutions are more conservative, and there is a lot of power behind fossil fuels to abuse that conservatism.

I didn't look at any of the links provided because I agree that "overconsumption, intensive farming, deforestation, heavy use of pesticides" et al are real and present problems contributing a great deal to species' decline. No, it is not all CO2's doing.

Pick a pesticide or herbicide and it's probably screwing things up. Neonicotinoids, a newer pesticide, is a known bee killer. Of course! That's what pesticides do. Kill insects. So, we should not be surprised.

But global warming plays a role. Insects and birds are affected by heat, as are their food sources. But I agree with your list of primary contributors -- overconsumption, intensive farming, deforestation, and heavy use of pesticides.

The trend, including the spikes, has started to occur before global carbon emissions were anywhere near the levels they are today. That undermines the assertion that mankind's carbon emissions are the primary cause. — Tzeentch

That doesn't follow. The trend on the graphs is visible from the 1970s onwards, well after humanity had started significant carbon emissions. That at the time, the concentration was still lower than it is today does not undermine the assertion that carbon emissions are the primary cause.

What would undermine it is if the trend started in, say, 1750. But it didn't.

The video features scientists that explain why they question the common narrative, using facts, graphs, etc. And there are tons like it. There is no shortage of scientists disputing the common climate change narrative. — Tzeentch

What is "no shortage" supposed to mean here? That there are more than 5, 10, 100? In relative terms, there absolutely is a "shortage", as various meta studies have shown.

Anyways, the video: The first scientist featured in the video is an aeronautics engineer with no formal training or background in a related subject. So, why should I listen to him concerning the topic of climate change?

Well I did anyways. The first 5 Minutes were a bunch of ad-hominems and self-congratulation about standing up to "the system".

So then we get to another borderline ad-hominem about the forest fire graph. Even without looking it up, it seems pretty likely that up to 1950, a lot more forest area was burned intentionally, something that would not have happened since. But regardless, it's obvious that the purpose of the argument is to undermine the credibility of the scientist that made it, even though Mr. Soon told us just minutes before that credibility doesn't matter, only the facts.

After that, more ad-hominem. An unjustified assertion that you only get awards for doing bad science. The graph at around 14:00 minutes is wildly misinterpreted. Then a non-sequitur about expecting more extreme cold weather (I suppose Soon thinks that this contradicts global warming, but of course that's nonsense). And more ad-hominem.

Well that was 10 minutes. Let's look at the next guy.

So now we have a professor for particle astorphysics and comsology. At least it's a professor, though I struggle to see how he has any qualification in the field. He starts talking about how politically independent his work about particle physics is. But of course, right now he isn't actually talking about his work in that field. And he goes on and on about that. Also he is not an expert in the field of climate science, as expected.

Eventually, he gets to the point: The politically charged nature of the field is sending the science "off the rails". Ok, interesting thesis. What does that mean exactly? Let's see some points.

- Many experimental results contradict the worst-case predictions of the IPCC. Ignoring for the moment that none of these results is mentioned, I would expect this to be the case for a worst-case prediction.

- Then, a book plug. Ok.

- This paper mentions that it's likely we get temperature data from the tropics wrong. Ok. What does that mean for climate science in general? Have we rechecked the numbers with that new info?

- Now the only actually interesting part is the chart about how baloon data doesn't agree with any of the predictions. Aaand we immediately use this to poison the well because we are going by insinuating someone tried to kill the author of the graph because of his views.

I did look up the graph though. Turns out there are a few problems with it. It uses a non-standard basline. It averages together the different satellite data sets and ignores the uncertainity in their measurements (these are not simple thermometers). It also uses the one dataset - that of the middle troposphere - that climate models are worst at predicting.

So, to summarize, I found one salient point, though that one point already has a bad rep. It also is not evidence against anthropogenic climate change, but merely that the rate of warming might be smaller that models currently predict.

The rest has, to put it mildly, not been encouraging.

What further fuels my skepticism is cases where climate skeptics are silenced and/or lose their jobs because of their concerns. Or how the fact that Michael Mann and his "icehockey graph" was exposed as being a fraud (in court), is kept almost completely silent. — Tzeentch

Can you give some examples for people "silenced"? And what do you mean that the "hokey stick" fiasco was "kept silent"? It was a hughe scandal. It was all over the media. It is, however, in the past, and newer models also show a "hockey-stick" curve without similar problems. Would you like every prediction to come with a disclaimer about how one previous model was publicly disgraced?

What I do know is that it isn't the large powers who are paying the bill for their own pollution. It's mostly small countries and toothless nations like the EU who do. — Tzeentch

And what does that tell you?

I believe that the tone in which we transmit our ideas is very important and it is a pivotal point that determines the effectiveness of the message that we want to deliver to our audience and see how the react to it. This has two following scenarios, they can either agree with what you say or they can disagree with your ideas.
I am not saying that there is a right or a wrong answer in this scenario, what I am trying to explain is that your tone in the way you deliver your speech has a high impact within your audience's reaction.
We all know, or should know by now, that climate change is a big threat to our planet and the environment where we live in, and that it is not a joke that could actually end the period of humanity and make our planet collapse their ecosystems making it unliveable for us human beings.
However, the way Greta Thunderbeg deliver her ideas in her speech is a to an extent very aggressive and harsh, accusing people that actually have no power over this fundamental problem.
First of all, Greta Thunberg uses social media platforms as a principal form of delivering her ideas and campaign or advocate for climate change; which we know digital platforms abuse the consumption of fossil fuels that harm and prejudice our environment, this shows an inconsistency with her views and advocating for actions to solve and help climate change.As she could be doing his movement with other campaign or platforms alternatives that would not harm the environment.
Second of all, the way in which her shows her graphic in correlation of growth economies and growth of climate change are very subjective and that is not actually the way our world works. Her being an eleven year old, it is not hard to see why she may not grasp certain concepts of statistics and data.

@Seneca Advocate

Greta Thunberg uses social media platforms as a principal form of delivering her ideas and campaign or advocate for climate change; which we know digital platforms abuse the consumption of fossil fuels that harm and prejudice our environment, this shows an inconsistency with her views and advocating for actions to solve and help climate change.As she could be doing his movement with other campaign or platforms alternatives that would not harm the environment.

I'm confused...like what platforms? Social media is paper-less, resource-less, and if I'm not mistaken Greta used wind power to travel across the ocean and fuel her basic necessities, ie. like internet...

Her being an eleven year old, it is not hard to see why she may not grasp certain concepts of statistics and data.

She's sixteen, not eleven, and while I agree she is not a qualified climatologist, she is an outspoken public speaker with a huge following; have you ever considered the reason "real" scientists have not publicly come out with science change (though thousands have, its just that common people can't be arsed to read their papers/discoveries/understand what the jargon means) is that scientists with direct data on climate change are under persecution by regressive right political groups? The Trump administration has fired dozens of scientists I read, regarding this very issue, including cutting government funding to universities studying climate change...didn't the head scientist of climate at NASA quit because no one would believe him?? A sixteen year old in comparison, has no risk of career to lose, is not risking her livelihood because she is still supported by her parents, and in my opinion, is a brilliant writer and speaker; much better than some of the 40+ year old politicians we have quacking on and on

However, the way Greta Thunderbeg deliver her ideas in her speech is a to an extent very aggressive and harsh, — Seneca Advocate

It should probably be noted that this was not her only speech, and it was by far the harshest one.

accusing people that actually have no power over this fundamental problem. — Seneca Advocate

Wait, the world governments have no power? Who does, then?

First of all, Greta Thunberg uses social media platforms as a principal form of delivering her ideas and campaign or advocate for climate change; which we know digital platforms abuse the consumption of fossil fuels that harm and prejudice our environment, this shows an inconsistency with her views and advocating for actions to solve and help climate change.As she could be doing his movement with other campaign or platforms alternatives that would not harm the environment. — Seneca Advocate

That just seems to be an "argument from hypocrisy", but being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. So, ultimately, it's just a veiled ad-hominem.

I was curious about the global projections for CO2 emissions for the rest of the century and I found this article from last year: http://euanmearns.com/global-co2-emissions-forecast-to-2100/

There are several plots in there. Here is a projection based on the three UN population growth estimates where the red line is the highest population growth.



The threshold of 2 degrees or 1 trillion tons of additional cumulative CO2 would be exceeded somewhere in the 2050-2055 for all three population growth scenarios. This is while factoring in the increase of renewable energy from 6% to 15% since 1965.

The author concludes:

How might the world achieve such massive reductions? Well, there’s also a near-exact correlation (R2 = 0.98) between global CO2 emissions and world GDP, and history shows that the only way of cutting CO2 emissions by any meaningful amount is by crashing the economy (the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s cut CO2 emissions in the former East Bloc states by almost 40% while the 2009 recession alone cut Spain’s emissions by 15%). Enough said.

So unless crashing the economy long term is a solution people are willing to go along with, or there is some technological breakthrough reversing the trend, we're heading for the 2-3 degree warming, at least.

Then it would be subjective.

The issue is scientific. — Harry Hindu

You are just not very good at the understandings, Harry.