Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"...Confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.” Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
The debate is over. Mankind is altering the climate; we are as certain of that as we are that the Earth is round and it orbits the Sun.
Humans have been exhaling carbon dioxide for thousands of years. Is that considered man-made climate change?
True, but certain fundamental science is well tested and considered reliable. Like the physics of greenhouse gases. The uncertain component is the climate forecast models, since its an immensely complex system scientists are still trying to understand. Essentially, humans are playing Russian roulette with the climate. We don't quite know for sure what's going to happen, but it's probably going to be very bad.
Atmosphere: 97% CO2
Weather Forecast: another hot day, a sizzling 872 deg F.!
yeah, good example, except that venus is several million miles CLOSER to the sun and as such is outside the goldilocks zone. also note that the atmospheric pressures on venus have been much higher than here on earth. nice try but you fail.
The projections of global and regional climate models (GCMs and RCMs) are not climate forecasts, and certainly not "facts". What they project is a range of climate outcomes based on different socio-economic scenarios and, on the climate side different "Representative Concentration Pathways" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway and https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-sXm9YLCKbuvGg which also are not "facts" for different climate models. These projections give ranges of climate outcomes for different meteorological variables. They are nothing more, or less, than guesses given the best available information. These outcomes can vary widely, based on the model used to make these projections and the meteorological variable being analyzed. There is also significant variation of these projections at the regional level, as well as the global averages.
And because climate scientists disagree widely about how, and wether or not, probabilities can be assigned to any single outcome projection within a group of outcomes, there is a great deal of uncertainty associated with these projections.
This IS the State-of-the Art. But the one thing that is quite certain is that global average temperatures increase when Green House Gas Emissions increase.
When people tell me the science is settled and the debate is over it is assured they are hiding something and trying to scam me. Not going to work. I don't believe in hokey religions.
Science is NEVER settled and must ALWAYS be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. So sayth the scientific method.
Nonsense. There was a time less than 100 years ago when atoms were still theory. That is now "settled" science. Sure new discoveries are made in the field, but there is a strawman constantly being applied to climate science that every single time anthropogenic climate change is discussed it must be reproven. All in the name of science never being "settled", yet that is standard no other is held to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.