hen a regular guy cannot get a straight answer about why human activity has superseded natural causes as reason for climate change, — Merkwurdichliebe
Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years, and very likely the past 125,000.
Unyielding heat waves broiled Phoenix and Argentina. Wildfires raged across Canada. Flooding in Libya killed thousands. Wintertime ice cover in the dark seas around Antarctica was at unprecedented lows.
This year’s global temperatures did not just beat prior records. They left them in the dust. From June through November, the mercury spent month after month soaring off the charts. December’s temperatures have largely remained above normal: Much of the Northeastern United States is expecting springlike conditions this week.
That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence — from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships — to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it.
The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case? — Merkwurdichliebe
i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money. — Merkwurdichliebe
The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case? — Merkwurdichliebe
The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out. — EricH
Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"? — Tzeentch
I just take note of typical grifty tactics, like narrative shifting, and as the list grows my trust shrinks. — Tzeentch
"Global warming" redirects here. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation) and Global warming (disambiguation). This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.
I'm coming around to the whole grift theory. I think you're exactly right. — frank
Schmidt says climate models have come a long way from the simple energy balance and general circulation models of the 1960s and early ‘70s to today’s increasingly high-resolution and comprehensive general circulation models
Back then it was mostly statistical studies. Then after that period atmospheric physicists joined in and made it a real science. — jgill
I agree, grift is a major part of it. Like all good scams there is a small element of truth involved. — Agree-to-Disagree
I agree, grift is a major part of it. — Agree-to-Disagree
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.