Yes. You’re missing the fact that detailed answers to all your questions are readily available. You could just read the short consensus of the major world academies of science [PDF] regarding necessary climate policies, or for more technical detail, any of the IPCC Assessment Reports. WG1 is the basic science assessment, and it, along with the others, contains both a Summary for Policymakers and a Technical Summary for those who want varying levels of detail without reading the entire report. It’s OK to ask questions, but there is a great deal of established science on the subject, and it’s much more useful than baseless opinionated skepticism.
That’s probably impossible to get a consensus on, but it’s unimportant. What’s important is that, however you want to describe or define “impact”, human industrial activity is incontrovertibly responsible for the earth’s recent warming trend.
Indeed. We’re not looking at 500 years for drastic change, because we’ve already seen drastic change, in the past 50 years. The last time it changed as much as it has in the past 50 years, that change took 2000 years.
I’m not sure why the premise if the first Q is false…yet
In any case, thank you for those links, that’s what i was looking for.
I don’t have an opinion though, I do like to play devil’s advocate, and ask questions about things that seem to be assumed.
To what degree?
Honestly I just quickly glanced at some charts and two things seemed to pop out.
1 we were in a warming trend coming out of the little ice age before we industrialized.
2 it seems like each cold trend has a roughly equal and opposite warm trend afterward.
Currently we are still a good ways from the opposite of the little ice age.
So I thought, how much is us?
I’m sure some is but how much.
Admittedly these are very very elementary observations and I am not educated on the subject yet.
It’s not just the warming trend - that by itself wouldn’t necessarily alarm anyone. It’s the degree, the rate at which we are warming that provides evidence of global warming.
I’d also add that since at least 1896, there have been professional papers authored that have predicted a correlation between human industrial activity and a gradual warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Thus, it’s not as though we’re observing a warming trend and saying “Aha! It’s the fault of man.” Scientists have been predicting global warming for more than a century, even before actual warming was conclusively observed.
This website of climate change myths might actually be a good starter resource:
Anyway, im seeing large portions of the northern hemisphere becoming more hospitable, release of unpolluted meltwater, possibly staving off an ice age.
How about this, if global warming deniers are right, then they’re right. But if they’re wrong, then they should be rounded up and thrown in jail for their injuries and crimes against humankind.
I agree , I’m sure we contribute. I was just curious how much
I’ll take a look for sure.
I am inclined to agree ( for now) though that the scaremongering seems out of proportion. I am given the impression of some mass Extinction of humanity, but the data just suggests change.
To be clear though, I support green energy , in my mind the appeal is that fossil fuels are dirty abd expensive. Why the hell wouldn’t we take advantage of clean, free ( or cheap) energy that’s all over the place. All I can think is complications caused by our previous lack of tech, and laziness to change.
I’ve long thought we should just put into housing code that all new construction ( especially residential) has to have some portion of wind or solar incorporated.
Also that we need to universalize EV batteries so they can simply be changed by a process kind of similar to automatic car washes, I think it would make them far more popular.
I’m well aware of all the WBT implications, as I said.
12c Change is AFAICT very drastic and so many years off even assuming business as usual and ignoring hundreds of years of future tech that this seems almost irrelevant.
WBT over 90 restricts military training heavily, and I’ve seen it a lot.
It’s not near as scary as it sounds.
I guess it’s these types of scare tactics that most turn me off.
It’s a bad thing, but I think maybe it’s bad enough on it’s real consequences to be motivating without the “we’re all gonna die!” Impression I perceive from many reports…
Uh, I’m afraid you are dismissing the part about being constant, based on what you said that took place alright, but not all the time as the article mentioned. And we are talking about guys that are trained and can restrict their training, not people that have health issues, children and the elderly.
Uh uh, kids and the elderly and people that have respiratory problems will acclimatize? I guess when they pass away it will be no problem. /s
As it was pointed before, it is likely if we keep business as usual and we do not do much to stop dumping CO2 in to the atmosphere.
One more thing: What you and soldiers experience has to be qualified as the low end in the future. As it was pointed, MIT and others are talking about what averages extreme temperatures can reach in regions of the word. However, the extremes soldiers in training encounter will also increase. Unless you can point at a mechanism that will prevent record highs to pop up under a time when the temperatures in the background will already be higher, many will then see even worse than the bad average temperatures in that scenario.
You’re very confused about the difference between a global average temperature change and a particular temperature and humidity at a given place and time. Global averages have been remarkably constant for thousands of years, and have cycled in remarkably constant ice age patterns for over a million years, with a correspondingly narrow band of CO2 changes. A global average change of only 1.5°C would be a serious step towards global catastrophe.
A 2010 study concluded that under a worst-case scenario for global warming with temperatures 12 °C (22 °F) higher than 2007, the wet-bulb temperature limit for humans could be exceeded around much of the world in future centuries.[10] A 2015 study concluded that parts of the globe could become uninhabitable.[11] An example of the threshold at which the human body is no longer able to cool itself and begins to overheat is a humidity level of 50% and a high heat of 46 °C (115 °F), as this would indicate a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C (95 °F).[12]
Is this study not referring to a 12c global average rise?
Since American right-wingers seem to feel that global warming is a delusion of liberals, it’s instructive to look at what other countries are saying in their news.
Global warming is not something that will happen in the future. It is happening right now, today, and will only get worse because people refuse to listen to facts and want to play devil’s advocate on a subject they admit they know nothing about.
The ipcc report makes sense except one thing, it’s entirely in the context of referring to 150 years ago at the dawn of industrialization.
Now between industrialization and present we’ve got a .8 rise but if we’ll look at the 150 years before industrialization we see another .8 rise…so
We’re on exactly the same path as before industrializing.
That’s why I question it. Was it supposed to stop already? How do we know that?
And for the co2, again ok it’s higher than in a million years but the last time it hit 280ppm (120k years ago) the global temp spike was +8c compared to present , now it’s at 411ppm but we’re only at a +.8c deviation?