World headed for Warmest Decade

[Ben_spanna]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47144058

The world is in the middle of what is likely to be the warmest 10 years since records began in 1850, says the Met Office.
It's forecasting that temperatures for each of the next five years are likely to be at or above 1C compared to pre-industrial levels.
There's also a small chance that one of the next five years will see global temperatures temporarily go above 1.5C.
That's seen as a critical threshold for climate change.
If the data matches the forecast, then the decade from 2014-2023 will be the warmest in more than 150 years of record keeping.
Climate change: UK CO2 emissions fall again
Warming threatens Himalayan glaciers
Blue planet to get even bluer
Will the forecast temperature rises bust the Paris climate agreement?
The Met Office says that 2015 was the first year in which the global annual average surface temperature reached 1C above the pre-industrial level, which is generally taken to mean the temperatures between 1850 and 1900.
Each year since then, the global average has hovered close to or above the 1C mark. Now, the Met Office says that trend is likely to continue or increase over the next five years.

[cryotec]

we need global warming

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4010404864

[Slartibartfast]

we need global warming

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4010404864

Lol. IDK where to begin with that one yes.

Where the climate change deniers?

[l33t2]

Man i wish carnival could be at night

[Miktay]

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

Polar vortex death toll rises to 21 as US cold snap continues

At least 21 people have died in one of the worst cold snaps to hit the US Midwest in decades.

Ninety million people - a third of the US - have seen temperatures of -17C (0F) or below. Some 250 million Americans overall have experienced the "polar vortex" conditions.

Hospitals have been treating patients reporting frostbite as parts of the country ground to a halt.

Temperatures are expected to swing to above average over the weekend.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47088684

[adnj]

The big picture: Studies show that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and rapid Arctic warming may paradoxically be leading to more frequent cold weather outbreaks in Europe, Asia and North America, particularly later in the winter.

How it works: The possible changes are being triggered by a sudden and drastic warming of the air in the stratosphere, some 100,000 feet above the Arctic, and by a resulting disruption of the polar vortex — an area of low pressure at high altitudes near the pole that, when disrupted, can wobble like a spinning top and send cold air to the south. In this case, it could split into three pieces, and those pieces would determine who gets hit the hardest.




https://www.axios.com/polar-vortex-is-about-to-split-up-5c2e7460-67fb-49da-b73a-079ffbe205b9.html

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

[maj. tom]

The NOAA had a twitter response to Trump's statement:

"Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening," NOAA tweeted, linking to a 2015 Climate.gov article that explains how warmer temperatures cause an increase in evaporation that in turn creates a wetter atmosphere and results in more rain and snow.

​In a statement to CBS News, the Maryland-headquartered agency explained that the tweet was more of a regularly scheduled alert. "[It's] something NOAA routinely puts out when we get an extreme cold snap such as the one we're in now," a spokesperson said.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... -happening

But I have a feeling that come July, Trump will find out where Global Warming went. And not to mention the California drought fires last year where 104 people died, including 6 firefighters. And then come September/October many millions of people and FEMA will feel the wrath of an extra warm Atlantic Ocean.

[l33t2]

[Slartibartfast]

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

Polar vortex death toll rises to 21 as US cold snap continues

At least 21 people have died in one of the worst cold snaps to hit the US Midwest in decades.

Ninety million people - a third of the US - have seen temperatures of -17C (0F) or below. Some 250 million Americans overall have experienced the "polar vortex" conditions.

Hospitals have been treating patients reporting frostbite as parts of the country ground to a halt.

Temperatures are expected to swing to above average over the weekend.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47088684

Do you know what thae word "global" means?

Showing on spot where the temperature has dropped proved nothing. It's also referred to as climate change for a reason. The warming is changing weather patterns which means some places will be colder but on average the globe will be warmer.

[Miktay]

The big picture: Studies show that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and rapid Arctic warming may paradoxically be leading to more frequent cold weather outbreaks in Europe, Asia and North America, particularly later in the winter.

How it works: The possible changes are being triggered by a sudden and drastic warming of the air in the stratosphere, some 100,000 feet above the Arctic, and by a resulting disruption of the polar vortex — an area of low pressure at high altitudes near the pole that, when disrupted, can wobble like a spinning top and send cold air to the south. In this case, it could split into three pieces, and those pieces would determine who gets hit the hardest.




https://www.axios.com/polar-vortex-is-about-to-split-up-5c2e7460-67fb-49da-b73a-079ffbe205b9.html

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

If u believe thiz then I have a bridge in Mayaro to sell yuh.

Man made global warming iz a popular meme. But thus far it remains an untested theory. That includes the prediction that we will have colder weather from global warming.

So here's the essential issue. How do scientists tell the difference b/t a man made global warming polar vortex and a naturally occurring polar vortex?

Here's The Real Connection Between The Brutal Polar Vortex And Global Warming

A record-breaking cold wave is sending literal shivers down the spines of millions of Americans.

Temperatures across the upper Midwest are forecast to fall an astonishing 50 degrees Fahrenheit (28 degrees Celsius) below normal this week – as low as 35°F below zero. Pile a gusty wind on top, and the air will feel like -60°F (-50°C)...

...Splits in the stratospheric polar vortex do happen naturally, but should we expect to see them more often thanks to climate change and rapid Arctic warming? It is possible that these cold intrusions could become a more regular winter story.

This is a hot research topic and is by no means settled, but a handful of studies offer compelling evidence that the stratospheric polar vortex is changing, and that this trend can explain bouts of unusually cold winter weather

.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how ... al-warming

[Slartibartfast]

The big picture: Studies show that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and rapid Arctic warming may paradoxically be leading to more frequent cold weather outbreaks in Europe, Asia and North America, particularly later in the winter.

How it works: The possible changes are being triggered by a sudden and drastic warming of the air in the stratosphere, some 100,000 feet above the Arctic, and by a resulting disruption of the polar vortex — an area of low pressure at high altitudes near the pole that, when disrupted, can wobble like a spinning top and send cold air to the south. In this case, it could split into three pieces, and those pieces would determine who gets hit the hardest.




https://www.axios.com/polar-vortex-is-about-to-split-up-5c2e7460-67fb-49da-b73a-079ffbe205b9.html

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

If u believe thiz then I have a bridge in Mayaro to sell yuh.

Man made global warming iz a popular meme. But thus far it remains an untested theory. That includes the prediction that we will have colder weather from global warming.

So here's the essential issue. How do scientists tell the difference b/t a man made global warming polar vortex and a naturally occurring polar vortex?

Here's The Real Connection Between The Brutal Polar Vortex And Global Warming

A record-breaking cold wave is sending literal shivers down the spines of millions of Americans.

Temperatures across the upper Midwest are forecast to fall an astonishing 50 degrees Fahrenheit (28 degrees Celsius) below normal this week – as low as 35°F below zero. Pile a gusty wind on top, and the air will feel like -60°F (-50°C)...

...Splits in the stratospheric polar vortex do happen naturally, but should we expect to see them more often thanks to climate change and rapid Arctic warming? It is possible that these cold intrusions could become a more regular winter story.

This is a hot research topic and is by no means settled, but a handful of studies offer compelling evidence that the stratospheric polar vortex is changing, and that this trend can explain bouts of unusually cold winter weather

.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how ... al-warming

So this article says that it may be due to global warming but they are not sure? How is this disproof of global warming?

[Miktay]

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

Polar vortex death toll rises to 21 as US cold snap continues

At least 21 people have died in one of the worst cold snaps to hit the US Midwest in decades.

Ninety million people - a third of the US - have seen temperatures of -17C (0F) or below. Some 250 million Americans overall have experienced the "polar vortex" conditions.

Hospitals have been treating patients reporting frostbite as parts of the country ground to a halt.

Temperatures are expected to swing to above average over the weekend.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47088684

Do you know what thae word "global" means?

Showing on spot where the temperature has dropped proved nothing. It's also referred to as climate change for a reason. The warming is changing weather patterns which means some places will be colder but on average the globe will be warmer.

Sounds good.

Where iz the proof that manmade global warming or in thiz case man made climate change iza real phenomena?

Let me know when you find it.

[Miktay]

The big picture: Studies show that what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic, and rapid Arctic warming may paradoxically be leading to more frequent cold weather outbreaks in Europe, Asia and North America, particularly later in the winter.

How it works: The possible changes are being triggered by a sudden and drastic warming of the air in the stratosphere, some 100,000 feet above the Arctic, and by a resulting disruption of the polar vortex — an area of low pressure at high altitudes near the pole that, when disrupted, can wobble like a spinning top and send cold air to the south. In this case, it could split into three pieces, and those pieces would determine who gets hit the hardest.




https://www.axios.com/polar-vortex-is-about-to-split-up-5c2e7460-67fb-49da-b73a-079ffbe205b9.html

Yep. It sure iz getting warmer.

If u believe thiz then I have a bridge in Mayaro to sell yuh.

Man made global warming iz a popular meme. But thus far it remains an untested theory. That includes the prediction that we will have colder weather from global warming.

So here's the essential issue. How do scientists tell the difference b/t a man made global warming polar vortex and a naturally occurring polar vortex?

Here's The Real Connection Between The Brutal Polar Vortex And Global Warming

A record-breaking cold wave is sending literal shivers down the spines of millions of Americans.

Temperatures across the upper Midwest are forecast to fall an astonishing 50 degrees Fahrenheit (28 degrees Celsius) below normal this week – as low as 35°F below zero. Pile a gusty wind on top, and the air will feel like -60°F (-50°C)...

...Splits in the stratospheric polar vortex do happen naturally, but should we expect to see them more often thanks to climate change and rapid Arctic warming? It is possible that these cold intrusions could become a more regular winter story.

This is a hot research topic and is by no means settled, but a handful of studies offer compelling evidence that the stratospheric polar vortex is changing, and that this trend can explain bouts of unusually cold winter weather

.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-how ... al-warming

So this article says that it may be due to global warming but they are not sure? How is this disproof of global warming?

The theory has to prove itself. Otherwise it remains a theory.

And that iz where it iz today. A theory with plenty speculation...rumor...innuendo and ole talk.

But no proof. No experiments. No substantial scientific evidence.

[Miktay]

........

[Slartibartfast]

The theory has to prove itself. Otherwise it remains a theory.

And that iz where it iz today. A theory with plenty speculation...rumor...innuendo and ole talk.

But no proof. No experiments. No substantial scientific evidence.

Proof was presented above (see quoted graph below).

:oops:

If you do not consider this proof, why not? Also, what criteria do you "proof" to satisfy?

You need "expected results" for any experiment that you plan to do. So what type of experiment are you looking for and what sort of expected results would you need to see to confirm (in your view) the theory of Global Warming?

Edit: FYI, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." - From Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think global warming may be considered a phenomenon and not a theory. But anyway, that's semantics and not really that relevant. Just wanted to point out that calling something a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as when you say you have a "theory" about random stuff like why crime so high in trinidad.

[adnj]

Global warming is a phenomenon. The theoretical portion is whether it is partially (or wholly) a consequence of green house gas release due to human activity.

James Hansen (NASA) first presented the theoretical probability of global warming due to human activity to the US Congress - that was more than 30 years ago.

Once again, why it is happening is not so much the issue. The fact that it is happening is.

[Slartibartfast]

Global warming is a phenomenon. The theoretical portion is whether it is a partially (or wholly) a consequence of green house gas release due to human activity.

Once again, why it is happening is not so much the issue. The fact that it is happening is.

My thing is even if it wasn't happening, let's say that climate change is false and it's one big conspiracy; why try to put off the switch to renewable energy? Fossil fuels is a finite resource and petroleum is used for a lot of other very valuable products other than just energy.

We have the technology not to smoothly transfer most of our energy consumption to renewable energy. That way fossil fuel can be saved for places where it is harder to replace, like shipping and air travel. What is the alternative that climate change deniers are hoping for?

[maj. tom]

Apparently dey fadda own ah oil rig. So they does talk like if it personal.

[adnj]

Apparently dey fadda own ah oil rig. So they does talk like if it personal.

This.

[maj. tom]

you mean "thiz."

[Miktay]

The theory has to prove itself. Otherwise it remains a theory.

And that iz where it iz today. A theory with plenty speculation...rumor...innuendo and ole talk.

But no proof. No experiments. No substantial scientific evidence.

Proof was presented above (see quoted graph below).

:oops:

If you do not consider this proof, why not? Also, what criteria do you "proof" to satisfy?

You need "expected results" for any experiment that you plan to do. So what type of experiment are you looking for and what sort of expected results would you need to see to confirm (in your view) the theory of Global Warming?

Edit: FYI, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." - From Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think global warming may be considered a phenomenon and not a theory. But anyway, that's semantics and not really that relevant. Just wanted to point out that calling something a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as when you say you have a "theory" about random stuff like why crime so high in trinidad.

That graph shows global temperatures have risen by a little less than 1 degree C over a little more than a century. Fair enuf.

Heres are a few important things we cant infer from the graph.

It doesnt state WHY temperatures are increasing.
It doesnt state HOW average global temperature iz measured. Thiz iz important because the assumption iz that such a critical thing as average global temperature can be measured accurately over 130 years
It doesnt state WHAT the ideal temperature of the planet should be.
It doesnt COMPARE the past 130 years to the previous 130 years or other time frame so we have a basis for comparison

And finally there iz no inference that man made global warming iz causing the temperature increase.

So that graph...if accurate...iz the beginning of the scientific process...not the end.

There arent any scientific conclusions about global climate that can be drawn from that graph.

[Slartibartfast]

The theory has to prove itself. Otherwise it remains a theory.

And that iz where it iz today. A theory with plenty speculation...rumor...innuendo and ole talk.

But no proof. No experiments. No substantial scientific evidence.

Proof was presented above (see quoted graph below).

:oops:

If you do not consider this proof, why not? Also, what criteria do you "proof" to satisfy?

You need "expected results" for any experiment that you plan to do. So what type of experiment are you looking for and what sort of expected results would you need to see to confirm (in your view) the theory of Global Warming?

Edit: FYI, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." - From Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think global warming may be considered a phenomenon and not a theory. But anyway, that's semantics and not really that relevant. Just wanted to point out that calling something a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as when you say you have a "theory" about random stuff like why crime so high in trinidad.

That graph shows global temperatures have risen by a little less than 1 degree C over a little more than a century. Fair enuf.

Heres are a few important things we cant infer from the graph.

1. It doesnt state WHY temperatures are increasing.

2. It doesnt state HOW average global temperature iz measured. Thiz iz important because the assumption iz that such a critical thing as average global temperature can be measured accurately over 130 years

3. It doesnt state WHAT the ideal temperature of the planet should be.

4. It doesnts state WHAT iz causing the temperature increase.

5. It doesnt COMPARE the past 130 years to the previous 130 years or other time frame so we have a basis for comparison

And finally there iz no inference that man made global warming iz causing the temperature increase.

So that graph...if accurate...iz the beginning of the scientific process.

It iz not conclusive. It doenst prove anything.

All of your questions can be answered by researching it online and verified once you take the time to look. Remember that just because you close your eyes to the information does not mean that it is not there. Of course those things are not shown in the graph. It is a just one graph. It is one representation of one of the final conclusions of one of the observational exercises of global warming. There is already a load of information packed into that tiny graph. I hope you didn't expect one graph to provide all the answers and proof for global warming.

I numbered your questions to make reference to the responses easier.
1.

These increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and their marked rate of change are largely attributable to human activities since the Industrial Revolution (1800).

2.

To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.

3. This is more about Climate Change than just Global Warming
This is where a bit of reasoning is required. Ideal temperature for what? You need to realise that this planet is just a big rock with some fancy moss and multi cellular bugs on it. It doesn't give a crap if we are alive or not. The ideal temperature would therefore be subjective to the creatures living on this rock we call Earth as any temperature is pretty fine from the Earth's point of view. The ideal temperature therefore is subjective, not just to the Earth, but to the particular specific places. When you have species dying out due to the recent variance in temperature it becomes apparent that whatever the "ideal" temperature is, that isn't it.

4.
Basically the same question as 1 unless I am missing something. Please let me know if I did.

5.
130 years is an oddly specific number? It's almost as if you came up with that number because it was the extents of the time axis on the graph. The graph nicely compares the last 60 years to the previous 60 years before it though and it shows a clear upward trend. Now, with no way to carry a thermometer back 500 years and measure the temperature, scientists have to use indicators such as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to indirectly derive this temperature. They can get this information by drilling ice cores

Increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide (top) and methane (bottom) coincided with the start of the Industrial Revolution in about 1750. Measurements from Antarctic ice cores (green lines) combined with direct atmospheric measurements (blue lines) show the increase of both gases over time. (NASA graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from the NOAA

I know, I know, what about comparing the last 250 years to the previous 250 years... don't worry, I got you covered



That last line is just plain false. But you can handle disproving that without my help.

[Miktay]

All of your questions can be answered by researching it online and verified once you take the time to look.

Again. Where are the repeatable experiments that support the Global Warming Theory? Where are the validated predictions?

Surely u can cite a few.

Remember that just because you close your eyes to the information does not mean that it is not there. Of course those things are not shown in the graph. It is a just one graph. It is one representation of one of the final conclusions of one of the observational exercises of global warming. There is already a load of information packed into that tiny graph. I hope you didn't expect one graph to provide all the answers and proof for global warming.

You cant fit a theory to the data. That iz not science. That iz speculation.

Human beings are fallible. Because we believe something iz so does not make it so.

That iz why the scientific process exists: to separate verifiable facts from untested feelings and imagination.

To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.

Per NASA Goddard Thiz iza recent distribution of thermometers used to determine global temperatures.

1. How are global temperatures accurately determined with thiz distribution. It iz heavily skewed. There are only 8 datapoints in the coldest part of the planet: the Antarctic.

2. Thermometer design has changed since 1890 (obviously). So how does credible science extrapolate average global temperature within 1 degree across 130 years ? There would have been larger margins of error for mecury thermometers in the early 1900s to current instruments.

[Ben_spanna]

Huge portion of ice melting from underneath in Antartic, could raise sea levels by as much as 2 feet.

If you really dont believe in global warming , ok then!

[Slartibartfast]

Again. Where are the repeatable experiments that support the Global Warming Theory? Where are the validated predictions?

And again, what exactly are your expectations. The original temperature graph shows the observations being repeated by several independent scientific bodies all over the world and coming to a similar conclusion. At least give me an example of what you would consider a relevant experiment so I know what you are looking for.

Remember that just because you close your eyes to the information does not mean that it is not there. Of course those things are not shown in the graph. It is a just one graph. It is one representation of one of the final conclusions of one of the observational exercises of global warming. There is already a load of information packed into that tiny graph. I hope you didn't expect one graph to provide all the answers and proof for global warming.

You cant fit a theory to the data. That iz not science. That iz speculation.

Human beings are fallible. Because we believe something iz so does not make it so.

That iz why the scientific process exists: to separate verifiable facts from untested feelings and imagination.

What do you understand about greenhouse gases?

To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.

Per NASA Goddard Thiz iza recent distribution of thermometers used to determine global temperatures.

1. How are global temperatures accurately determined with thiz distribution. It iz heavily skewed. There are only 8 datapoints in the coldest part of the planet: the Antarctic.

2. Thermometer design has changed since 1890 (obviously). So how does credible science extrapolate average global temperature within 1 degree across 130 years ? There would have been larger margins of error for mecury thermometers in the early 1900s to current instruments.

Remember, the final result is global temperature variance. Not global temperature. Installing more thermometers is one way to control for errors. Your method of analyzing the data is another way. Letting separate groups analyse the data is another way.

Show me what an acceptable array of themometers would look like.

It appears that regardless of how much data or proof is presented to you, your go to response it that it is not enough but you seem unable to state what would be acceptable as proof. So tell me, exactly what information will you like to see or what are the criteria that you will like met? Tell me what would be considered "good enough" for each of the concerns you raised there.

[Miktay]

It appears that regardless of how much data or proof is presented to you, your go to response it that it is not enough but you seem unable to state what would be acceptable as proof. So tell me, exactly what information will you like to see or what are the criteria that you will like met? Tell me what would be considered "good enough" for each of the concerns you raised there.

No. Thiz iz not accurate.

I ask for proof that the theory iz relevant. Data iz not proof.

Data may support a point of view. But credible scientists create experiments to test theories. Then publish findings which have to be validated and repeated by other scientists to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Thats how real science works. A body of validated and repeatable experiments support a theory from which u can make informed predictions.

Predictions are where the rubber meets the road. Predictions must bear the test of reality. Otherwise you have to revisit the theory.

Here iza citation from Science. It describes an experiment to test the time dilation prediction from the theory of Relativity.

Optical Clocks and Relativity
C. W. Chou*, D. B. Hume, T. Rosenband, D. J. Wineland

Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630

[adnj]

According to NASA, the evidence is incontrovertible that climate change is real and represents a serious threat. Based on studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they report that at least 97% of working climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" reports unequivocally that climate change has multiple negative impacts on the environment and is extremely likely to be caused by human-made greenhouse gases.

In addition to hypothesizing that various components of political belief would be correlated with climate change denial, [psychological studies have] predicted that "climate change mitigation threat" (anxiety that efforts to address climate change will negatively impact the socioeconomic status quo) would be a significant additional factor in climate change denial. In other words, researchers expect that people who deny climate change would at least be partially motivated to do so to avoid negative effects on social and economic factors, in spite of being presented with the clear and present danger posed by climate change.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201704/why-do-people-want-refute-climate-change

Global warming is a phenomenon. The theoretical portion is whether it is a partially (or wholly) a consequence of green house gas release due to human activity.

Once again, why it is happening is not so much the issue. The fact that it is happening is.

My thing is even if it wasn't happening, let's say that climate change is false and it's one big conspiracy; why try to put off the switch to renewable energy? Fossil fuels is a finite resource and petroleum is used for a lot of other very valuable products other than just energy.

We have the technology not to smoothly transfer most of our energy consumption to renewable energy. That way fossil fuel can be saved for places where it is harder to replace, like shipping and air travel. What is the alternative that climate change deniers are hoping for?

Apparently dey fadda own ah oil rig. So they does talk like if it personal.

The theory has to prove itself. Otherwise it remains a theory.

And that iz where it iz today. A theory with plenty speculation...rumor...innuendo and ole talk.

But no proof. No experiments. No substantial scientific evidence.

Proof was presented above (see quoted graph below).

:oops:

If you do not consider this proof, why not? Also, what criteria do you "proof" to satisfy?

You need "expected results" for any experiment that you plan to do. So what type of experiment are you looking for and what sort of expected results would you need to see to confirm (in your view) the theory of Global Warming?

Edit: FYI, "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world." - From Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think global warming may be considered a phenomenon and not a theory. But anyway, that's semantics and not really that relevant. Just wanted to point out that calling something a scientific theory does not mean the same thing as when you say you have a "theory" about random stuff like why crime so high in trinidad.

That graph shows global temperatures have risen by a little less than 1 degree C over a little more than a century. Fair enuf.

Heres are a few important things we cant infer from the graph.

It doesnt state WHY temperatures are increasing.
It doesnt state HOW average global temperature iz measured. Thiz iz important because the assumption iz that such a critical thing as average global temperature can be measured accurately over 130 years
It doesnt state WHAT the ideal temperature of the planet should be.
It doesnt COMPARE the past 130 years to the previous 130 years or other time frame so we have a basis for comparison

And finally there iz no inference that man made global warming iz causing the temperature increase.

So that graph...if accurate...iz the beginning of the scientific process...not the end.

There arent any scientific conclusions about global climate that can be drawn from that graph.

[Slartibartfast]

Thats how real science works. A body of validated and repeatable experiments support a theory from which u can make informed predictions.

Predictions are where the rubber meets the road. Predictions must bear the test of reality. Otherwise you have to revisit the theory.

Here iza citation from Science. It describes an experiment to test the time dilation prediction from the theory of Relativity.

"data" is such a vague blanket term that saying "data is not proof" does not really mean anything. Some data is proof, some data is not, some data requires further analysis, some data can be biased or corrupted. That statement is so vague that it means nothing.

Again, give me an example of an experiment that you want to see. Time dilation is something that can be directly observed so that experiment presented makes sense. Global Warming is a historical and current event. Explain to me an example of a global warming experiment that you would like to see that you would consider as relevant proof.

I agree that prediction is what it is all about. This is a good point. So are you saying that if predictions are made about global warming and observations of global warming line up with those predictions that you would accept that as unequivocal proof? Are you saying that a prediction of global warming that observations were then later to confirm would be good enough proof for you? If yes, what kind of a timeline are we looking at? Like a 10 year prediction? 20? Keep in mind that this is a very recent in terms of human history and you would therefore not get predictions like 30 or 40 years old. But this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, side question, what temperature increase would you consider relevant because (correct me if I am wrong) but you don't see a 1-1.5 degree increase in temperature as meaning anything. But there must be some threshold. Is it 5 degrees? 10?

[daring dragoon]

it is fixable if they really wanted to but they dont. it is a plan hatched by the ac manufacturers and the bottle water industry.
with all the fresh water ice melting up north and down south and filling the oceans the world govt instead ah studying murudo and venezuela they come together and build a series of desalinization plants in africa and provide fresh water in the deserts of africa and plant trees and after a few years they will be fully grown and start cool the earth. and problem fixed.

[adnj]

Actually, predictive global warming studies are 30 or 40 years old.

Thats how real science works. A body of validated and repeatable experiments support a theory from which u can make informed predictions...

It describes an experiment to test the time dilation prediction from the theory of Relativity.

"data" is such a vague blanket term that saying "data is not ....

I agree that prediction is what it is all about. This is a good point. So are you saying that if predictions are made about global warming and observations of global warming line up with those predictions that you would accept that as unequivocal proof? Are you saying that a prediction of global warming that observations were then later to confirm would be good enough proof for you? If yes, what kind of a timeline are we looking at? Like a 10 year prediction? 20? Keep in mind that this is a very recent in terms of human history and you would therefore not get predictions like 30 or 40 years old. But this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, side question, what temperature increase would you consider relevant because (correct me if I am wrong) but you don't see a 1-1.5 degree increase in temperature as meaning anything. But there must be some threshold. Is it 5 degrees? 10?