456 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Well, give it a few years and I'll ask you again what you think Oh, and lol @ this:

the IPCC should focus on more specific problems such as describing emissions pathways required to avoid a given temperature rise

Yeah, because that is such a simple problem.

[medicineman]

"It goes like this: they hired our parents to destroy this world, now they’d like to put us to work rebuilding it, and – to top it all off – at a profit. The morbid excitement that animates journalists and advertisers these days as they report each new proof of global warming reveals the steely smile of the new green capitalism, in the making since the 70s, which we waited for at the turn of the century but which never came. Well, here it is! It’s sustainability! Alternative solutions, that’s it too! The health of the planet demands it! No doubt about it anymore, it’s a green scene; the environment will be the crux of the political economy of the 21st century. A new volley of “industrial solutions” comes with each new catastrophic possibility."

[platypus]

CO2 haves no impact on warming the earth.

According to elementary physics it does. If you want to argue that the this warming effect in masked or compensated by some process in the climate system you'd better cough up some evidence to support your claims.

[platypus]

Now let's talk about the ices that is melting. In september the north pole is at is minimum ice coverage and yes actually this minimum is getting smaller but at his maximum (in March) the ice coverage is actually getting bigger since 2006. The Antarctic ices have more fluctuations than the arctic's but it haves slowly increased in coverage since 1975. What happens here when they get alarmed about the melting ices is bad science. They look somewhere and forget to look somewhere else to make a global statistic (which i think is important for a subject such as global warming.

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995. In addition, almost all other glaciers are retreating with the exception of some in Karakoram, Alaska and Northern Scandinavia. In total glaciers are clearly getting smaller at a recently accelerated rate and this is contributing to observed sea-level rise. The area of sea-ice, which you brought up has been drastically reduced in the Arctic during summer - we're recovering from the recent catastrophic lows but are still way below the the longer-term mean. Since loss of sea-ice is a positive feedback on Arctic waring we should keep our eyes on this.

[M4Y0U]

Now let's talk about the ices that is melting. In september the north pole is at is minimum ice coverage and yes actually this minimum is getting smaller but at his maximum (in March) the ice coverage is actually getting bigger since 2006. The Antarctic ices have more fluctuations than the arctic's but it haves slowly increased in coverage since 1975. What happens here when they get alarmed about the melting ices is bad science. They look somewhere and forget to look somewhere else to make a global statistic (which i think is important for a subject such as global warming.

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995. In addition, almost all other glaciers are retreating with the exception of some in Karakoram, Alaska and Northern Scandinavia. In total glaciers are clearly getting smaller at a recently accelerated rate and this is contributing to observed sea-level rise. The area of sea-ice, which you brought up has been drastically reduced in the Arctic during summer - we're recovering from the recent catastrophic lows but are still way below the the longer-term mean. Since loss of sea-ice is a positive feedback on Arctic waring we should keep our eyes on this.

The problem with most people on a topic such as ''global warming'' is that they confuse it with climate changes or meteo. Get used to climate changes because we observe fluctuations since we are able to observe things with good science. As for global warming get used to it because yes the earth is getting warmer since it's still recovering from the little ice age but the it's all due to the output of the sun. Human made C02 haves no impact to the green house effect unless you eliminate water vapor which account for 95% of the green house effect and I repeat the non-human C02 account for about 5% and human C02 less than 1%. Anyway just check this video http://www.cassiopei...pe_Name=General with real science in it and you will understand it all. Oh and by the the way when we are talking C02 in such topic we are talking chemistry and biology.

http://www.cassiopei...pe_Name=General

Best regards,
M4

Edited by M4Y0U, 17 February 2010 - 05:25 PM.

[niner]

I am moving this to the Politics forum where it clearly belongs.

[rwac]

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995.

This is not undisputed. Antarctic sea ice has actually been trending upwards since 1972 or so.

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

[M4Y0U]

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995.

This is not undisputed. Antarctic sea ice has actually been trending upwards since 1972 or so.

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

There you go! That's real science. Some people might ask ''why they make such a buzz with global warming and reducing our green-house gaz then?''. My answer to this question is to force technological advances and be cleaner with the biosphere therefore forcing everyone to use all the resources available in term of energy for cleaner ways = faster technological advances. Next big thing is solar energy and then nuclear fusion and it's clean. All we do is for us and our health and not for the earth because we have no impact on earth (for now), earth will always be there (I mean for a couple trillion of years), maybe not us.

Best regards,
M4

[medicineman]

Since then, however, The Sunday Times has discovered that the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI.

One of them, announced earlier this month just before the scandal broke, resulted in a £310,000 grant from Carnegie.

The implication here is that the grant was the result of the bogus claim. That is unlikely.

*sigh* the point you are missing here Niner is that more and more of these exaggerated claims are coming to light, only to be excused repeatedly by true believers.

Science is not ADVOCACY. Science is finding the facts. As more and more advocacy comes to light, and more and more of this "science" is proven to be wildly inaccurate and overhyped, it undermines the validity of ALL science, not just that of climatology.

Do you really relish the thought of funding cut to life extension research because the public has decided that all science is a scam? That's where this is headed so long as the mounting evidence is continually denied by the climate change believers.

This is a mockery of the scientific method. Defending it by denial of the evidence of chicanery is a pure and simple refusal to face a reality you don't want to believe.

And the thing you really don't seem to get is that this is neo-ludditism pure and simple. It's an agenda to suppress technological development. And the big point I think you are missing is that it's not really even about climate science per se so much as it is climate science has been usurped by a neo-luddite movement which has used it as a front man for a larger anti-technological movement. And I've been watching this movement from a long time before climate change became an issue. I can remember it way back when Hydrochlorofloracarbons (or however the damn word is spelled) was the big huge threat depleting the Ozone and we were all gonna die from virulent sunburn.

Is climate changing, yes. Sorry to say, IT DOES THAT. At NO POINT IN HISTORY has earth's climate stayed the same for more than a few hundred years. SHIFT HAPPENS.

I just want to voice my opinion regarding the book you linked. I really don't recommend it, unless you need a 3rd tier book about libertarianism..... A summary of it is:

-market is good if completely free
-government is bad, we dont need it
-god is a bad idea
-did we say god is a bad idea?
-the government is bad
-we are dimwits who assume everyone will be acting selflessly in the presence of no authority
-and the final few chapters are really poor philosophy

lol i really did find the do for fun section as hilarious.. I really thought that join the libertarian party or free state project quite amusing.

Nope, the authors are not motivated

Edited by medicineman, 17 February 2010 - 11:42 PM.

[Grail]

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995.

This is not undisputed. Antarctic sea ice has actually been trending upwards since 1972 or so.

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Ice sheets covering land are different in both nature and composition to sea ice. Sea ice increases or decreases don't really effect ocean levels, and increases may be caused by increased precipitation and cooler localised water due to runoff from massive sub-sheet reservoirs and rivers. The sea ice will probably be the last thing to go.

[platypus]

Yeah, let's. The ice-sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica have been losing mass at an accelerated rate since about 1995.

This is not undisputed. Antarctic sea ice has actually been trending upwards since 1972 or so.

IPCC gate Du Jour – Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Sea ice and glaciers are two completely different things! Glaciers are losing mass fast worldwide.

[platypus]

All we do is for us and our health and not for the earth because we have no impact on earth (for now)

Man, you're incredibly misinformed. Take a look at land-use patterns now and compare them with ones just 500 years ago - the difference is colossal! Humans have already radically transformed vast areas of the Earth!

[medicineman]

All we do is for us and our health and not for the earth because we have no impact on earth (for now)

Man, you're incredibly misinformed. Take a look at land-use patterns now and compare them with ones just 500 years ago - the difference is colossal! Humans have already radically transformed vast areas of the Earth!

No, the evidence shows that our 10,000 year old earth is unchanged by us.. Its all a zionist conspiracy

[valkyrie_ice]

And to those who wish to dismiss the CRU e-mails and the damage they do to scientific credibility world-wide, this was just released by the Institute of Physics to Parliament

http://www.publicati...data/uc3902.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)


The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.


What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.


Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?


10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.


How independent are the other two international data sets?


13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.


The Institute of Physics

February 2010

So... if Parliament acts on this, maybe some actual good will come out of this debacle, and this kind of systematic scientific fraud will become harder to pull.

And before some idiot tries to dismiss PHYSICISTS as unqualified to discuss Climatology, this isn't about the climate, its about the METHODOLOGY. And the IOP is a major publisher of peer reviewed journals http://www.iop.org/EJ/

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 28 February 2010 - 08:40 PM.

[gregandbeaker]

Methane!

From physorg.com:

Shakhova notes that Earth’s geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing and venting

[caliban]

Automatic message


This topic has been moved from "Round Table Discussion -> Politics & Law" to "Round Table Discussion -> Global Risks".

[Mind]

This one is due for an update.

 

Nearly another 9 years have passed. 9 more years of apocalyptic predictions of the end of the world due to global warming, which is now called "climate change". This on top of the previous 2 decades of predictions that the world was going to end (literally, in many instances) due to global warming.

 

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, mostly due to China. The U.S. leads the world in carbon emission reductions in recent years! If current trends continue and the direct greenhouse warming theory holds, then the best projections indicate the planet will warm between another 2 and 4 degrees C by 2050 (average outlook, some are a degree or so higher, some are lower).

 

Will this 2 to 4 degrees finally lead to the collapse of agriculture, ecosystems, ocean food webs, and society itself - the mass starvation and death, that has been predicted year after year after year after year after year, after decade, after decade....etc? I think there will be trouble spots, but I very much doubt all of the extreme predictions.

 

It is incredible that in the face of thousands and thousands of predictions (over decades and decades) of ecological and societal collapse due to global warming, almost every metric of average human well-being has increased....EVERY YEAR! This year is the best year for the average human throughout the entirety of reliable human records.

[Marconius]

From what I have read climate scientists do not know what a raise in temperatures would cause, since a lot depend on secondary effects that can not be simulated. So most of these disaster predications we hear from politicians and the media are just that. Disaster predictions made by media and politicians. It might happen or it might not happen. And that is part of the problem they latch on to the most extreme scenarios, because that is most useful (at least for the politicians) to press far reaching measures that might or might not work. But will lead to large scale economic disruption or at the very least enormous costs which will sharply increase government debt. And most of the cost will be passed on to net-tax payers. Mostly meaning the working class and the self-employed. 

 

Also notice how they want to completely marginalize non-human factors instead of stating that climate changes trough a combination of both human and non-human factors. Which of course means that the measures they propose would even at best be inadequate we-need-to-do-something actions that at best would just slow the rate of climate change. What at the present seems to be the goal, not stopping climate change. But taking radical measures so that we have 0.5 less warming up, in order to get a less catastrophic outcome. 

[Heisok]

I agree with much of what was mentioned by the two of you-Marconius and Mind.

 

"Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, mostly due to China." Not quite true. The absolute rise in the atmosphere is due to all sources of Carbon Dioxide not just the largest source. The U.S. has decreased  the yearly amount of emissions, but still contributes a great amount to the total amount worldwide. I will guess that the per capita volume in the U.S. is still far greater.

 

Drastic changes to policy, which can raise costs, such as for electricity, and motor vehicle fuel, disproportionately hurt the lower income groups . Theoretically, If I have a family of four and make $3,000 dollars a month in the U.S., an increase of $100 a month in costs for items such as home heating, cooling, lights, other electricity needs and food, it is a far greater burden than if I made $6,000 per month. Perhaps taking food off the table, so-to-speak. Large volumes of Nitrogen fertilizer are made using Natural Gas, and the question is how has that enabled large increases in agricultural production. Same concepts apply for developing countries.

 

This comment could apply to  advocates, but years ago in an N.P.R. interview, one of the top scientists in charge of measuring CO2 for N.O.A.A. (should be independent, but not an independent statement) made a couple interesting comments. One was that we need to eliminate all fossil fuels, and the other that we need to radically change the economic systems (Capitalism). The latter sounds familiar.

 

 

Edited by Heisok, 06 November 2018 - 05:51 PM.

[Mind]

My feeling is that the market-based economy of the world (mainly capitalist-type systems) is our best bet for solving environmental problems while also raising standards of living and driving technological progress. It is inconceivable to me that some group of bureaucrats could get together and deliver the same.

Edited by Mind, 06 November 2018 - 06:03 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

As we can see, today global warming has large-scale negative consequences for society

 

 

Most advocates for the position that global warming is a problem tell us there are negative consequences that will occur in the future.  

 

What are the negative consequences we are experiencing today in your opinion?

[platypus]

Most advocates for the position that global warming is a problem tell us there are negative consequences that will occur in the future.  

 

What are the negative consequences we are experiencing today in your opinion?

I would say at least the following are already happening (in random order):

 

- More frequent heatwaves and marine heatwaves

- Species migrating towards north, there's a limit how much ecosystems can adapt, especially if everything is a patchwork with human settlements and agricultural areas breaking nature-corridors. 

- Melting land ice = mass loss of glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets

- Melting of permafrost that is putting infrastructure at risk

- Globally rising sea level even though the currect ~3.5mm+ per year is not devastatingly fast. but more is sure to follow as the speed of land ice loss has been accelerating

- Financial problems for ski areas and snow sports in general. 

- Coral bleaching due to marine heatwaves with negative consequences for the tourism industry

- Loss of biodiversity = useful genetic material being lost + ecosystems becoming less resilient

[Lazarus Long]

I would say at least the following are already happening (in random order):

- More frequent heatwaves and marine heatwaves
- Species migrating towards north, there's a limit how much ecosystems can adapt, especially if everything is a patchwork with human settlements and agricultural areas breaking nature-corridors.
- Melting land ice = mass loss of glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets
- Melting of permafrost that is putting infrastructure at risk
- Globally rising sea level even though the currect ~3.5mm+ per year is not devastatingly fast. but more is sure to follow as the speed of land ice loss has been accelerating
- Financial problems for ski areas and snow sports in general.
- Coral bleaching due to marine heatwaves with negative consequences for the tourism industry
- Loss of biodiversity = useful genetic material being lost + ecosystems becoming less resilient

As usual Platypus, an accurate and depressing assessment. I have always enjoyed your ability to calmly confront denialism with demonstrable facts. Too bad few have ever let facts get in the way of prejudice, whatever the issue or motivation.

I want to add just a few more examples to your excellent list, some build on your list.

-- Acceleration of the Sixth Great Extinction event. This is the cumulative effect of some of the items on your list and is already well underway. It's being accelerated by habitat loss to humans.

--- Chaotic weather patterns with increased ferocity and frequency, as well as greater damage. Heat waves and hurricanes in Europe for a recent example.

--- Increased desertification and burning in expanding areas of risk. Loss of fertile farmland and an increase in the cost and demands for farming.

--- Marine die-offs with a concurrent loss of food supply for humans, as well as the ecological collapse of the support base for larger species and the proliferation of toxic microflora.

--- Increased resource (combat) conflicts in areas at highest risk for for cross border drought (Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Brazil, etc.), and economic asymmetrical competition for economic resources. This is most notable in Africa, Asia, and South America, but not exclusively. Colonialism doesn't require a flag when driven by authoritarian monopoly.

--- And leaving the most obvious for last, the hightened risk of pandemic due to multiple factors already described. This pandemic is waning, and our tools to confront it are improving, but the frequency for such an occurrence is accelerating, their severity increasing, and humans being so naturally short sighted and selfish think primarily about the impact on our own species. They find it too easy to ignore the potential for the impact of pandemic upon other species that we directly, and indirectly depend on. We're seeing these too. Zoonotic disease moves in both directions.

It's good to see how you stayed here diligently seeking to educate through reason.

I almost forgot one prediction of the polar melt and climate impact that hasn't happened yet, but is showing strong evidence of already starting, the shift in major oceanic currents (Gulfstream, Humboldt etc) caused by the collapse of the gyres that drive them. That's despite having icbergs the size of small countries floating in the shipping lanes.

Is the humor of irony the same as schadenfreude?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 30 December 2020 - 12:47 AM.

[Mind]

 

 

This is the cumulative effect of some of the items on your list and is already well underway. It's being accelerated by habit loss to humans.

 

Habitat loss is a huge issue - a multifactorial problem. I think progress in efficiency, assisted by AI should help to some degree (with industrial agriculture, mining, energy, etc..)

[Lazarus Long]

Thanks for helping me edit Mind. It's nice to visit and see how you've kept the place.

Urbanization and industrial aquaculture need to move offshore into accessible coastal regions. In some senses China and Dubai have already started, but humans need to be more imaginative.

[Lazarus Long]

Here's a good example of a place to start.
Sea Stem
https://globetrender.com/2020/11/10/sea-stem-autonomous-mobile-habitat-living-ocean/

Edited by Lazarus Long, 30 December 2020 - 01:42 AM.

[Mind]

Unfortunately there have been a lot of hyperbolic predictions of doom, as I pointed out earlier. This has led to more skepticism about some environmental issues and global warming.

 

https://junkscience....ate-doomsaying/

[Lazarus Long]

The data support the concerns I and others have raised. There has been, and likely will continue to be hyperbole from those that deny, as well as those seeking to incite fear, but some facts are undeniable.

The article you present is seriously out of date. As well as somewhat cherry picked.

2020 appears to be a tie for the warmest year recorded. That record was set some 3 years ago. The top 10 globally warmest years have all occured since 2000, though one of those is a tie with 1998.

According to NOAA and the Royal Society

1. Is the climate warming? | Royal Society
:text=Yes.,-1970s%20%5BFigure%201a%5D' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>https://royalsociety...70s [Figure 1a]

Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) since 1900, with over half of the increase occurring since the mid-1970s [Figure 1a]. A wide range of other observations (such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content) and indications from the natural world (such as poleward shifts of temperature-sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc.) together provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary-scale warming.

Earth’s global average surface temperature has risen as shown in this plot of combined land and ocean measurements from 1850 to 2019, derived from three independent analyses of the available data sets. The temperature changes are relative to the global average surface temperature of 1961−1990. Source: NOAA Climate.gov; data from UK Met Office Hadley Centre (maroon), US National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies (red), and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information.

When I get the ability to post the graphics and links properly I will edit them in. The point is that temperature did rise by almost 2 degrees fahrenheit (1.8), not the less than half a degree your article claims.

[Mind]

The data support the concerns I and others have raised. There has been, and likely will continue to be hyperbole from those that deny, as well as those seeking to incite fear, but some facts are undeniable.

The article you present is seriously out of date. As well as somewhat cherry picked.

2020 appears to be a tie for the warmest year recorded. That record was set some 3 years ago. The top 10 globally warmest years have all occured since 2000, though one of those is a tie with 1998.

According to NOAA and the Royal Society

When I get the ability to post the graphics and links properly I will edit them in. The point is that temperature did rise by almost 2 degrees fahrenheit (1.8), not the less than half a degree your article claims.

 

Of course it is cherry-picked. I know that. That was the point of sharing it. To show how hyperbolic predictions of doom, can lead to more skepticism. You don't have to prove to me how things have changed in the last couple of decades.

[platypus]

Many of the changes caused by AGW are non-reversible in a societal timescale. Sea-level, damage to ecosystems etc. etc.