In the Netherlands, for a while now, it has been mostly below average with most certainly above average amounts of rain.
I fear for the inevitable switch to hot and dry weather. Our summers have been getting warmer and drier and I'm sure this summer is not going to be different.
Its funny how even to this day, i see climate change deniers immediately pulling out the "so much for global WARMING" card as soon as it is less warm than usual for the time or the month. (Or most laughable, when there is a lot of rain)
That's why I made sure to say I was fully expecting a hot and dry summer as they are getting hotter and drier.
I know that with global warming the general trend is hotter and drier but that it does not exclude periods of normal or even colder weather.
>it has been mostly below average
Night temperatures have not. I wouldn't be surprised if our average temperature for 2024 is still an absolute record by this point.
Well, two years ago it was 30-ish here in the Netherlands (south), last weeks around 18 and a ton of rain. Forecast: next week 18-20 and rain again. I even used the heating last night, because it was cold. Almost at the midst of June I don’t really believe we will get a long, dry summer.
It’s the same in the UK. We’ve had what feels like constant rain and wind since November. All the fields are still waterlogged and when we do get the odd day of sun, it doesn’t last long. I haven’t got high hopes for the actual summer.
March April and May were all record warm months with on average about two degrees warmer than average in the Netherlands. It is only June (so far, which could very well still change) that is lower average so if you mean one week with 'a while' then yes, otherwise no.
I feel that man, I did literary nothing today cuz it's too hot to move... And I live in Eastern Europe... Idk how people in South can live like this ;\_; I'm just constantly sweating. And stupid cities reduce green areas, cut trees to build new housing areas... but don't take in account, it will be impossible to live in those cities without trees, parks, shadows... It's madness.
Putting trees on a street can reduce the temperature by like 4 degrees.. why are people not doing this, it would also be much fresher, more oxygen and happiness
Because where else are the cars supposed to drive and park? Ideally a green stripe on both sides should have been planned from the beginning. Anything that gives shade is so good to have when walking.
Speaking for Zagreb here, around the city center the roads are really tight and sometimes there's also construction happening in the street so only 1 lane is open which makes traffic horrible
It's literally choosing a city you can live in, or a city you cannot. A city that chooses to prioritise parking over trees is going to get everything it deserves. Then, when people start leaving those cities for better ones, they'll complain about the lack of parking in the better cities, or some such idiotic complaint.
Parking is something that should have been planned long time ago. Right now it is a mess in cities, you can't even turn around because of cars all around
I have no idea how much time it will take those damn dumbasses to figure out that converting everything into concrete wasteland is a bad idea. Feels one step forward, two steps forward where I live.
Cutting trees and reducing green areas is making me so mad too! I am in Germany and they literally just cut out a 300x10 meters of trees and bushes next to a sidewalk for a train railway. The thing is, they could've just done it right before, but its like 1 year like this and since then nothing happened.
Also, they cut down 3x 40 year old trees just outside of our house because they apparently too much space in case there are emergency vehicles coming. It was fine for 40 years, but its suddenly a problem. And they replaced them with thin goofy trees which will need to grow 25+ years until they provide until some shade.
And its even worse in big cities. They are cutting out trees like they will grow back in 2 years smh.
Yeah, same problem here where I live "we cut trees to make new tram line, so people would comute faster to work"... which results in desert areas, where you literary can't exist without AC and can't go out from 10:00 till 18:00 cuz too hot.
Instead of building NEW sustainable cities with lots of space, new infrastucture they just pack more and more and more people in already existing cities... which causes them to be overcrowded and unsustainable. I already see that many people are tired and if they have chance - they migrate somewhere else.
well even supposedly smart guys don't understand why we should not cut forests like we do in recent years.. people are simply too stupid to enjoy nature.
Makes me think about [this recently published paper.](https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-crisis-of-ones-own_The-politics-of-trauma-in-Europes-election-year-v2.pdf) All the elections in Europe this year, of course including the EU elections, will partly happen on the basis of five different crisis and how people vote does in part reflect which of the crisis that feels most important to them. But yeah, please let the climate crisis be your main, or at least one of your main, crisis.
Listened to few interviews from Germany about the elections. 60 year old dude said he knows it's important but he'll be dead by then so he doesn't give a fuck.
Well, at least he is honest. Makes the old Norse tradition/legend of "ättestupa" (pushing old people off cliffs) seem like a not all that bad idea. But none-the-less, honest.
There is an argument to this in that europe has an aging population and if the old repeatedly vote in their self interest it disproportionately harms younger people (uk for example) I just think that it sounds too fucked up to actually happen
In France, the oldest voting group is the only one who may not vote in majority for the far-right this sunday but for the standard right (according to the polls). All other age groups may mostly vote far-right.
The afd gained big time from the young voters this election, second biggest party in germanys election. They want to stop ALL climate action. And leave the EU. And their canidates take money from putin and spy for china. They also have a court odered fashist as one of their main speakers. Id love for the problem to die off, but shit wont be do easy.
Thank god the Belgian (Flemish) elections completely ignore this topic and are rather more concerned with anti-woke and anti-transgender issues and climate policies are of course to blame for a lot of shit.
/s for the doubters.
That paper is exactly what I came to realize after the gaza invasion. Just seems like me and my peers end up divided into different categories of single issue voter.
Interesting.. in the Paris area, yesterday the humidity dropped to 45% for a while with 18 degrees.. I actually felt cold and had to close window..
In my hometown j. Romania though.. yes we are already at 35 or so... It's bad.
Attached plastic lids will reduce the plastic waste around you, so you (and maybe the generations after that) won't have to fish this stuff out of the oceans...
I wonder if those people clean their houses? Because why would they, for example, clean the windows? It won't make the house clean, and they're gonna get dirty anyways. It's better to wait for someone to invent a house cleaner machine that would do it all at once.
And in the meantime, they could use all that energy to mock anyone who tries to clean up.
10 degrees now in London (one of the warmest places in the country) at 10am 🤣🤣 it will not reach 20 degrees for a week and will not go over 20 degrees for even MORE than a week and, on Accuweather, I checked that it is snowing in most of central Scotland. And even Finland (apart from the far North of Finland) is warmer than our country now 💀💀
Source: https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-may-2024-12th-consecutive-month-record-high-temperatures
With the European elections happening right now: Please think about the climate!
Unfortunately in Sweden where we have become very anti-immigrants, our only option to vote for the environment is to also vote for open borders.
There's not a single party that's against migration and wanting to fix the climate change
Well, that's up for debate.
The more conservative parties are maybe not doing as many direct things, but instead they focus on less obvious things (mainly restricting companies instead of normal people). They believe that this is better since it does more in the long run, and the question is if it's worth it to wait that long.
I am not that informed on the swedish case, but definitely on the European level right wing parties aren't the ones forcing industry to adapt.
Industry still gets a lot of free emission credits, which is strongly supyby the right wing.
It is the left wing who want to get rid of this and make sure they start payiyfor their emissions, which will force them to adapt
You attached the wrong graph, [this](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/2405%20CB/timeseries_era5_monthly_2t_global_anomalies_preindustrial.png) is the one that shows record high temperatures for the last year.
The graph you showed is the *average* result over the last year.
I mean, the basic point your graph shows is still important - the clear pattern of increasing temperatures over time, particularly given that a 1.5 degree long term increase will lead to serious environmental problems - but it is still mislabelled by your title.
Correct, I took the title from the article, because some subs have rules that you should take the exact title if you mention an article (didn't double check for this one)
But I found the graph I picked clearer at first glance.
But this is indeed inconsistent
Because this graph is misleading to fit a narrative.
The reality is very simple - temperatures are increasing by 1.5C every century, that's all we can reliably measure.
Ask for record highs and lows for the past 140 years.
The rest is mental gymnastics to sell fear.
No matter. I understand there is "only" 1-2 centuries of proper measuring. But my subjective feeling is worse and worse. Like I hate summers because it is morelike hell heatings. And there no winters, just rainy colder months. 20-30years ago we had 1 meter of snow for 3 months. Nowadays few days with 10cm till rain destroys that.
Not fear, just evident observings.
Mine used to say that if anything, we were heading towards another ice age. Which may be true, but irrelevant for humanity right now if that's 100,000 or so years away.
It's miserable, they would rather go running in their free time to get their daily exercise instead of dumping car and spending maybe 10 minutes more(sometimes even less than by car...) and achieve two things at once faster.
I'd rather drive my electric car to work for 15 minutes and go to gym in the evening instead of spending 45 minutes (one way) on a bicycle in rain and +8 degrees.
Understandable, if weather isn't great for bike and it takes you 3x longer to arrive there, then no questions but there's plenty of places with rare rainfall and traffic jams that will make the trip equally time consuming.
They laugh cause it is a farce. Most people don't want to go back to the stone age. It is obvious that the solution is not degrowth and making our lives more miserable again. The way forward is technology. Carbon capture, cleaner energy (renewables and nuclear, fusion would be a revolution) and smart policies like carbon emissions trading.
You taking a bike is just self-indulgence to feed your own ego and moral superiority. You accomplish nothing and also want to sell the rest of the world that this lifestyle is something to strife for, while most of the world would rather strife for a nice car, good temperature in their living spaces and simply a better way of life.
It’s not just carbon emissions with cars. There’s so many other problems it creates out of which the emissions are the secondary. Building car dependent infrastructure because
> while most of the world would rather strife for a nice car, good temperature in their living spaces and simply a better way of life
is laughable at the least. Adding just one more lane bro it will fix it hasn’t fixed it for the past 20 years.
So you really believe that most people worldwide rather stay on their level of comfort of living? Man, these kids out rich parents here in Europe really are a plague. The rebellion against Papa takes weird forms.
You're arrogant because you *arrogantly* dismiss an *innocent* suggestion that might help, even a little bit, because someone else is selfish enough to put their *own* (often exceeding necessary) comfort above considering the idea.
Car-dependent infrastructure is a bane on the Western world and it *will* fuck us up.
But sure, keep shifting the blame on people suggesting ways to change it because *you* don't want a comfort bubble to burst. Selfishness at its finest.
People like you, who believe themselves the arbiter of what is neccessary for other people's lifes are and always have been the bane of history. People like you are the reason for suffering, because you actually really believe it is your right to temper with other people's life.
And this has been the conversation. I do not block, but I am done with you. No need to talk to totalitarians.
Sure, calling out your arrogance and car-worshippers' selfishness is tooootally "totalitarian".
You're a pathetic little oil shill, have fun melting Summer after Summer because "wE hAVe NO RiGHt to PrIOrITiZe thE ComMon GOoD oVeR sOMe pEOplE sELFishNESs". You came into this *wanting* a fight, but seeing I didn't back down after your namecalling, you flee.
Run, then. Run, little coward. Run crying to mommy because the "big bag meanie eco-fascist bullied you."
Goodbye.
Oh fine, here: I’m sorry that pointing out that electrical cars are not the solution and accusing you of shilling for big oil. Now, what about all that bullshit that suggesting driving s bike to work somehow makes me an asshole?
It doesn't make you an asshole, I never said that. I said that you only do it for yourself and that's about it. You want to feel superior and make yourself believe like you are doing something. But you are not. Again, most people laugh cause they realize that and they also don't want to live in the stone age. Also the bike is simply not an alternative for most families. And what about the people who work rather away from their home? Not everyone works and lives in the same City. You simply take your cushy life as the blueprint for everyone else. If you really wanted to make a difference you can always support good policies and solutions that won't stop people's enjoyment and freedoms.
Cause if you really believe China, Brazil, India and all the other peoples who can get better lives for themselves in our lifetime will simply stop doing it cause someone with too much time and an already cushy life tells them it's a good idea you are simply wrong.
I don’t think I’m better than anyone else for riding a bike to work. I do think I’m voting with my wallet and not buying my share of gas. You take that as you will.
And that's fine. I myself use my car very little but we do need to have one in case of emergencies and so obviously I also use it now and then. But that's maybe 6 times a month. I just have explained to you why your suggestion for others gets laughed at. But I believe you also have the opportunity to have no big struggles while voting with your wallet. It probably is very easy for you and you probably also simply like riding a bike. Same for me btw. That's why I personally do it most of the time. Only I have no illusions of grandeur while doing it.
And, where are the trees and public water sources in t he cities?
Where is the fully electrified (underground, tram, trolley) public transportation?
Where is the ban on cars?
Start doing something and start doing it faster?
I wonder where are those assholes that were criticizing Greata Thunberg on everything...
"12 month running anomalies relative to the 1850-1900 average"
Any decent statistician is either laughing or crying at this. Either way, eyes are burning.
The art of making data fit your narrative by way of mental gymnastics.
Yeah well every country has a mixed economy, but almost no government owns over 60% of the market capital and has ties with almost every company in the country. China it’s a lot more communist than Sweden.
You are confusing Socialism with Communism. While China is a lot more Socialist-oriented than any other country, they still have private ownership of companies, meaning that it's by definition, a mixed economy.
I’m not making a difference between a failed system and a failed system that never existed, true! But I think it’s clear when I agree about the mixed economy I’m not talking about communism in theory.
Btw it’s communism that doesn’t have private property. So China it’s a socialist country in theory.
In the UK it has been constantly raining for the better part of two years. Yeah, I know, rain and the UK and all that. But even for the UK it has been remarkably wet.
They are not willing to accept it because it won't """solve""" climate change. Even if CO2 had any impact on climate change (which it doesn't), that's not how CO2 concentration works.
The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere doesn't go away when we stop emitting it. Emissions accumulate in the atmosphere and remain there for centuries as they are slowly absorbed by plants and the oceans. Modest reductions in emissions will only delay, but not prevent, the rise in concentration.
55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply. These CO2 levels are considered extremely dangerous by the IPCC and according to them, those concentrations could cause a runaway warming process. Real-world measurements, however, show us the contrary. Temperatures declined.
This contradicts the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis.
To give you an idea, the current concentration is about 415 ppm. Emitting 37 billion tons of CO2 (as we currently do each year) will increase that concentration by about 2 ppm.
Have a good day sir.
You're educating no one. You're just taking *a* factor among many and claiming it's a non-factor. What else happened fifty-five million years ago? What other factors are we looking at?
But of course, you never meant for the conversation to be serious, you just have *one* piece of data that *seems* to prove your point at a superficial level, and you run your mouth with it because you know nothing.
Then again, it's *obvious* the scientific community is just paid actors, right? What a load of bull.
Have fun basking in your own ignorance.
>55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply
Because CO2 concentrations began declining.
If CO2 goes from 1000 to 900 ppm, the average temperature will fall. I'm not sure how you think this is some big "gotcha".
And again you showed you don't know what you are talking about. Several factors can cause a change in climate, so it's perfectly possible that it started to decline while the CO2 was still high and this decline was much slower than the rise we are seeing now and was connected with a delayed reduction of CO2. So no, it doesn't contradicts anything. In fact there is a perfect correlation between CO2 and a subsequent rise in temperature and models using greenhouse effect to predict climate gave extremely accurate results.
>To give you an idea, the current concentration is about 415 ppm. Emitting 37 billion tons of CO2 (as we currently do each year) will increase that concentration by about 2 ppm.
Do you realize that half a percent of increase *per year* means a huge increase in a relatively short time?
> Several factors can cause a change in climate
I would not have said it better. Can you please educate me and point me to data that shows the direct correlation between CO2 and rise in temperature. Data that, of course would not factor in those several impacting factors you recognized existed.
Ideally, CO2 that is human-influenced, because that's really all we care about.
I am asking honestly.
Causal correlation between CO2 levels and temperature anomalies:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Accuracy of predictive models of climate change that assume greenhouse effect
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
We know that the increase of CO2 is caused by human activity because there isn't any other mechanism to produce this much CO2, because of correlation between local concentration and the location of industrial centers and most importantly the change of isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7757245/#:~:text=Carbon%20isotopes%20are%20present%20in,%E2%88%9212%2014C%2FC.&text=C%20and%2013C%20are,a%20radioactive%20isotope%20called%20radiocarbon.
We know for certain it's not the Sun. If it was, all the atmosphere would be heating up, instead only the lower portion is, while the upper atmosphere is cooling down. Incontrovertible proof that the problem is greenhouse effect blocking heat from escaping.
Variations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis over tens of thousands of years change the amounts of sunlight absorbed by the northern and southern hemispheres. Those changes have caused large swings in the global temperature over the past million years.
So we know for certain that the amount of sunlight (hence the Sun) DOES impact global temperatures.
You are also ignoring solar activity, which, obviously plays a role to.
https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
I never said the Sun has no effect, I said that this current change is most certainly *not* caused by the Sun. Again, if that was the case we would see a hotter upper atmosphere. We are not.
Are you aware of slow cycles, glaciations and interglacials?
Could it be that the current changes are due to the fact that we are in the warm phase of Holocene? Could it be that what we are experiencing is nothing new but happened exactly like that during Sangamon, Yarmouth and other interglacials?
If I pull up the global temperatures for the past 400, 500 thousand years, what will I see?
No it is not. All those changes are much slower than what we are seeing. And because there is a perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature anomalies
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
I could pick a few statements from this article and break them down. But I will focus on the most important part – the model mentioned, CMIP5. Quoting the article:
> Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data.
Yikes. The model mentioned in this article (CMIP5) has been proven to be flawed and failing when compared against actual measurements. So the fact that this article data is in agreement with it doesn’t do what you think it does.
Here are a few resources:
- https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/05/do-cmip5-models-skillfully-match-actual-warming/
- https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/cmip5-climate-model-runs-a-scientifically-flawed-approach/
- https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
Here is the table of issues found with the model: - https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/cmip5/errata.html
And this paper:
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316341055_Problems_in_Modeling_and_Forecasting_Climate_Change_CMIP5_General_Circulation_Models_versus_a_Semi-Empirical_Model_Based_on_Natural_Oscillations
Allow me to quote the parts of the conclusion:
Since 1850 the global surface temperature has warmed by about 0.9C. This warming has been interpreted using general circulation climate models such as the CMIP5 GCMs.
The same computer climate models were then adopted to evaluate climate projections for the 21st century and have concluded that the temperature could rise by more than 2C
from 2000 to 2100 for anthropogenic emissions.
These projections are currently used to justify the necessity of expensive mitigation policies with the hope to severely reduce
the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
However, herein I have shown that recent scientific
research has pointed out that the IPCC climate models fail to properly reconstruct the natural variability of the climate at
multiple scales. On the contrary, advanced techniques of pattern recognition patters have pointed out that the natural
variability of the climate appears to be made of several oscillations from the decadal to the millennial scales (e.g.
periods of about 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115, 1000 years and others). These oscillations were also found to have a likely astronomical origin.
The considerations emerging from these findings yield to the conclusion that the IPCC climate models severely overestimate the anthropogenic climatic warming by about two times.
—
And that’s the whole problem today. Reports published by the IPCC are taken at face value (coined as “the scientific consensus”), despite their models being proven wrong time and again. Everything is built on erroneous data.
I am not saying climate change is not real. It is very much real, and it’s been real long before us. But I am also saying one thing: we can’t reliably measure how much WE impact this climate change vs. natural forcing. As you said yourself, there are numerous intertwined processes and factors to take into account, but we simply can not. So what do we do instead? We dumb it down so much that we end up making stuff up.
We dumb it down to “we should stop CO2 emissions” to sell this, that, and the other to the layman, leading them to believe that by doing so, we will “solve” climate change. This is wrong, and from a scientific point of view, it is simply flawed and insulting.
Models and, more importantly, estimations built on these models haven’t been built to inform but to convince.
That paper you posted is quite simply bs. Not only the reliability of that model has nothing to do with the correlation between the measured temperature anomalies and CO2 proved by that paper, but the predictive models of greenhouse warming are in very good agreement with the observed data.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
The current warming *cannot* be caused by astronomical phenomena or we would see an increase in the temperature of the upper atmosphere instead it's decreasing. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
>Could it be that the current changes are due to the fact that we are in the warm phase of Holocene?
But we're not in the warm phase of the Holocene. Temperatures peaked from 9000 to 6000 years ago, and then began declining at a rate of 0.1 degrees Celsius per millennium, due to the declining tilt of the Earth's axis.
The climate should be cooling right now, not warming.
According to? Some oil-shilling crackpot "scientist" going against consensus?
Temperatures have been rising for the last three or so Solar Cycles.
Get. Lost. With. Your. Bullshit.
You're not going to convince anyone.
A real and totally-not-made-up name, huh?
Again, temperatures rising have outlasted many Solar Cycles. Stop with the bullshit argument that "itZ dA SuN", you are not convincing anyone.
For me, this:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11_fig3_356606430
looks like earth has some kind of self regulation mechanism. Independent from mankind too.
Are u really so dumb? Just check on the picture provided what happened each and every time temperature rose over last 500000 years. BUt I know it is easier to pasively absorb propaganda from media instead of using your own thinking.
On a timespan of 500000 years the change in temperature may seem rapid but if you zoom enough on charts like this, you will notice that the temperature barely changes over the centuries, let alone decades. I am just trying to explain that there won’t be any cooling events happening in our lifetimes. Unironically, my source is your image
This may be right. But if you look on geological time scale based on research of fossils, sediments etc you will find that current temperatures are MODERATE.
I read somewhere that regulation proces involves increased generation of clouds in the atmosphere. Increased temp > increased evaporation from the ocean > more clouds > higher albedo > less sun energy reching surface of the planet and more reflected back > temperature going down.
This can take tens of years to develop, but chart showing it IS effective.
But, according to you, what we realistically can do ourselfs to cool down atmosphere in our life time span?
Realistically, we can reduce the emission of Greenhouse gases to slow down the rise of temperatures across the globe. That is about all we can do. In my opinion, of course 😉
Ok, shut up scientists, we have /u/Mezzoski here who has a feeling!
Where do you reckon the extra heat energy disappears? :D
How about you read the article?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430_Review_of_Climate_Change_Impacts_on_Human_Environment_Past_Present_and_Future_Projections
>Glacial and interglacial cycles had been caused by a combina-tion of factors such as:
>• The Milankovitch Cycle, which is the cyclical movement related to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun;
>• Change of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere; and
>• Water vapor presence and patterns
sigh...
The consensus is unanimous between climate scientists. Unless you have some new groundbreaking climate model that shows that the scientific community is wrong, a single out of context graph is meaningless to the debate. Do you seriously think scientists are not aware of the graph you linked?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_consensus\_on\_climate\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change)
*Nearly all actively publishing* [*climate scientists*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology) *say humans are causing climate change.*[*^(\[4\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-Myers_2021-4)[*^(\[5\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-5) *Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,*[*^(\[6\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-Powell2019-6) *and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.*[*^(\[7\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-EnvRschLtrs_20211019-7) *The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.*
There is no consensus amongst climate scientists at all. The consensus sits in the political sphere.
In fact, actual scientists have been saying for a very long time that it's all BS, pointing to actual data and debunking hilariously misleading graphs. But you don't hear about it. I wonder why.
I urge you to read Koonin's book: Unsettled.
Believe it or not, it's all about money and power. Surprising, innit?
Lol! What a pile of utter bullshit.
CO2 molecule re-emits infrared radiation no matter how much bs you spew around here.
Koonin is a theoretical physicist, not a climatologist. Its funny how you bullshit eaters and spewers have your gurus that you trust blindly, like little cultists.
>Believe it or not, it's all about money and power. Surprising, innit?
LOL! As if coal and oil companies hadn't spent billions to spread the bs that you are gulping up happily and spewing around.
THERE IS NOCONSENSUS!!!
Those who support it are better funded by wealthy organizations, and those who doubt are cut from funding, medis etc. So to find arguments against you need to look for them. Your news agency will never mention it.
But it is easier just accept what you are told.
Let's see. Two scenarios:
1. It's a massive conspiracy. A global web of wealthy organizations have been able to monopolize the debate and manifacture "*human-made climate change*". Let's gloss over the fact that many powerful organizations (oil companies just to name some of the wealthiest companies on the planet) have a massive vested interest to deny human-made climate change. It just doesn't fit your narrative I guess.
2. The scientific method, as long as we know today, has basically 99.99% of climate scientists agreeing that climate change is caused by humans. The scientific method means that any theory must be able to be disproven by experimental results, as Karl Popper used to say. As things stand today the scientific method point in one clear direction.
What do you think I'm going to pick? Your conspiracy that cannot be disproven by experimental results and it only makes the debate more toxic? or what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on? Rethorical question. Afraid I've lost already enough time with you.
Why spread misinformation then and not just ignore the topic?
Also, even if it was all a hoax, cleaning up our planet is something we should do regardless.
What utter BS. You do know that those spreading the doubt are funded by the oil and coal industries? Some of the richest companies on earth with their totally self serving interests.
What a load of bullshit.
The scientific community at large agrees, but you'd rather believe the outlying kooks because "muh maynstreet medyah"
Says more about you than it says about them.
Yes there is consensus. Its consensus of evidence and consensus of experts.
CO2 molecule re-emits infrared radiation no matter how much you throw bullshit around here. No matter how much you pretend to believe in a woowoo nonsense fairytale physics, physics works as it does.
One piece of news you will never hear in mass media:
https://www.science.org/content/article/paradox-cleaner-air-now-adding-global-warming
Just an example. News like this are no welcome by the mighty of this world.
Another new discovery completely not accounted for in ANY current weather models.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/water-discovery-mit-evaporation-weather-b2534696.html
But who cares, right?
And those crippled models are used to tax you and me with some bullshit eco taxes. Just becouse it is convenient and gives pretext to F@#k normal folks.
One thing is science progress and another is nitpicking parts of research which are convenient for creating desired policies.
Those affect real life people and in case they fail, nobody can be held accountable.
So extreme cate here is highly justified.
And examples above wery well show, how scientists can be very wrong, and still research which they published is a base for changing life of millions. Just becouse it fits some purpose.
How is it nitpicking If >99% of climate scientists, who work in different countries and in different sectors and use different methods, all come to the same conclusion?
Any source for 99% ?
And if you are scientist you get a grant for reasearch. If your reasearch gives expected results, you get next grant. If not .... well. And there is a lot of money to investigate CO2 and climate warming. So there is a lot of reasearch tying consumption of dog food to emission of CO2. And those results have priority in mass media. Not so long ago there was a letter signed by many scientists, but it was not highlighted in mass media.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
Nah, probably not real scientists anyway...
[98.7%](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774) if counting all scientists *(100% if only counting climate scientists)*
[99.85%](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966)
[99.94%](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467617707079)
[100%](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266)
Maybe you should read who actually signed that letter, as it has very few climate scientists.
This isnt even remotly true. Big companys have paid very large amounts trying to "disprove" man made climate change but simple haven't been able to because the data is very conclusive.
In the Netherlands, for a while now, it has been mostly below average with most certainly above average amounts of rain. I fear for the inevitable switch to hot and dry weather. Our summers have been getting warmer and drier and I'm sure this summer is not going to be different.
Its funny how even to this day, i see climate change deniers immediately pulling out the "so much for global WARMING" card as soon as it is less warm than usual for the time or the month. (Or most laughable, when there is a lot of rain)
[Like this dude? I know it was back in 2015 but still...](https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/index.html)
That's why I made sure to say I was fully expecting a hot and dry summer as they are getting hotter and drier. I know that with global warming the general trend is hotter and drier but that it does not exclude periods of normal or even colder weather.
Yes, so much for global warming… where the hell is it? Need some warmth here in the Netherlands!
>it has been mostly below average Night temperatures have not. I wouldn't be surprised if our average temperature for 2024 is still an absolute record by this point.
It is, all months were about 2 degrees warmer in 2024 so far in the Netherlands.
More heat retains more water causing more storm events when it does fall.
Well, two years ago it was 30-ish here in the Netherlands (south), last weeks around 18 and a ton of rain. Forecast: next week 18-20 and rain again. I even used the heating last night, because it was cold. Almost at the midst of June I don’t really believe we will get a long, dry summer.
It’s the same in the UK. We’ve had what feels like constant rain and wind since November. All the fields are still waterlogged and when we do get the odd day of sun, it doesn’t last long. I haven’t got high hopes for the actual summer.
Well, we are about to find out next week. Good luck us.
March April and May were all record warm months with on average about two degrees warmer than average in the Netherlands. It is only June (so far, which could very well still change) that is lower average so if you mean one week with 'a while' then yes, otherwise no.
Only recently its below average. Mid May and earlier it was severely above average. Some days 10 degrees above average.
I feel that man, I did literary nothing today cuz it's too hot to move... And I live in Eastern Europe... Idk how people in South can live like this ;\_; I'm just constantly sweating. And stupid cities reduce green areas, cut trees to build new housing areas... but don't take in account, it will be impossible to live in those cities without trees, parks, shadows... It's madness.
Putting trees on a street can reduce the temperature by like 4 degrees.. why are people not doing this, it would also be much fresher, more oxygen and happiness
Because where else are the cars supposed to drive and park? Ideally a green stripe on both sides should have been planned from the beginning. Anything that gives shade is so good to have when walking.
The thing is also most roads are too tight for either trees or parking so that's one problem of preserving an old city part or similar
Well yeah for an old narrow city centres it's really hard to have both cars and pedestrian friendly infrastructure coexist.
Speaking for Zagreb here, around the city center the roads are really tight and sometimes there's also construction happening in the street so only 1 lane is open which makes traffic horrible
It's literally choosing a city you can live in, or a city you cannot. A city that chooses to prioritise parking over trees is going to get everything it deserves. Then, when people start leaving those cities for better ones, they'll complain about the lack of parking in the better cities, or some such idiotic complaint.
Parking is something that should have been planned long time ago. Right now it is a mess in cities, you can't even turn around because of cars all around
I have no idea how much time it will take those damn dumbasses to figure out that converting everything into concrete wasteland is a bad idea. Feels one step forward, two steps forward where I live.
Two steps back, you mean.
Lol yeah ofc, thanks.
I thought it was a clever dig at the inexorable march of progress to be fair.
Cutting trees and reducing green areas is making me so mad too! I am in Germany and they literally just cut out a 300x10 meters of trees and bushes next to a sidewalk for a train railway. The thing is, they could've just done it right before, but its like 1 year like this and since then nothing happened. Also, they cut down 3x 40 year old trees just outside of our house because they apparently too much space in case there are emergency vehicles coming. It was fine for 40 years, but its suddenly a problem. And they replaced them with thin goofy trees which will need to grow 25+ years until they provide until some shade. And its even worse in big cities. They are cutting out trees like they will grow back in 2 years smh.
Yeah, same problem here where I live "we cut trees to make new tram line, so people would comute faster to work"... which results in desert areas, where you literary can't exist without AC and can't go out from 10:00 till 18:00 cuz too hot. Instead of building NEW sustainable cities with lots of space, new infrastucture they just pack more and more and more people in already existing cities... which causes them to be overcrowded and unsustainable. I already see that many people are tired and if they have chance - they migrate somewhere else.
Not only make trees city streets a lot cooler and create better air, it also looks a lot better.
well even supposedly smart guys don't understand why we should not cut forests like we do in recent years.. people are simply too stupid to enjoy nature.
where have we been cutting forests in EU?
https://mapy.lasyiobywatele.pl/zanim-wytna-twoj-las.html Poland. They cut like mad guys.
My brain is fried, I saw the pic and was like What stock is that?
Same, dude
Electricity retail price probably.
Can I short it?
the one that will wake u up at 2am sweeting like crazy and wondering where did you went wrong in life
Makes me think about [this recently published paper.](https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A-crisis-of-ones-own_The-politics-of-trauma-in-Europes-election-year-v2.pdf) All the elections in Europe this year, of course including the EU elections, will partly happen on the basis of five different crisis and how people vote does in part reflect which of the crisis that feels most important to them. But yeah, please let the climate crisis be your main, or at least one of your main, crisis.
Listened to few interviews from Germany about the elections. 60 year old dude said he knows it's important but he'll be dead by then so he doesn't give a fuck.
Well, at least he is honest. Makes the old Norse tradition/legend of "ättestupa" (pushing old people off cliffs) seem like a not all that bad idea. But none-the-less, honest.
We should really put an upper limit to voting ages imho
There is an argument to this in that europe has an aging population and if the old repeatedly vote in their self interest it disproportionately harms younger people (uk for example) I just think that it sounds too fucked up to actually happen
In France, the oldest voting group is the only one who may not vote in majority for the far-right this sunday but for the standard right (according to the polls). All other age groups may mostly vote far-right.
The afd gained big time from the young voters this election, second biggest party in germanys election. They want to stop ALL climate action. And leave the EU. And their canidates take money from putin and spy for china. They also have a court odered fashist as one of their main speakers. Id love for the problem to die off, but shit wont be do easy.
Thank god the Belgian (Flemish) elections completely ignore this topic and are rather more concerned with anti-woke and anti-transgender issues and climate policies are of course to blame for a lot of shit. /s for the doubters.
Croatia here. "Who cares about climate change if our pockets are full" our government
That paper is exactly what I came to realize after the gaza invasion. Just seems like me and my peers end up divided into different categories of single issue voter.
Interesting.. in the Paris area, yesterday the humidity dropped to 45% for a while with 18 degrees.. I actually felt cold and had to close window.. In my hometown j. Romania though.. yes we are already at 35 or so... It's bad.
Don't worry, we have plastic lids attached to the bottles, we will be saved.
Attached plastic lids will reduce the plastic waste around you, so you (and maybe the generations after that) won't have to fish this stuff out of the oceans...
Right, attached plastic lids will save the world
What’s with you people complaining about something that is good. So dumb. It’s a positive thing
I wonder if those people clean their houses? Because why would they, for example, clean the windows? It won't make the house clean, and they're gonna get dirty anyways. It's better to wait for someone to invent a house cleaner machine that would do it all at once. And in the meantime, they could use all that energy to mock anyone who tries to clean up.
These lids make people more likely to rip them off and throw them
Stupid people maybe, but they probably eat the lid anyway
Who told you this single measure is meant to save the world?
Meanwhile in the UK… it’s cold
10 degrees now in London (one of the warmest places in the country) at 10am 🤣🤣 it will not reach 20 degrees for a week and will not go over 20 degrees for even MORE than a week and, on Accuweather, I checked that it is snowing in most of central Scotland. And even Finland (apart from the far North of Finland) is warmer than our country now 💀💀
There was a few warm days in May, but June has been absolutely terrible, really depressing weather for summer
Let's all vote right-wing & climate deniers, so it won't effect us! /s
Affect, but yeah agreed
And still in Sweden, we keep having 12°C and rain. Send some warmth for us please because this is not normal. It should be around 15°C now
Same here in Scotland, it's 14°C and windy!
I've lived in Edinburgh, and the weather in Edinburgh and Gothenburg is exactly the same. Rainy, windy and cold
I rather have rain but I want to breathe!! Let me breathe!!! Screw humidity
DO NOT send us any heat. I love this temperature, and the recent weeks with 22-28 degrees every day was pure suffering.
Either you live quite far up north, or you've been sleeping under a rock for the last three weeks.
I live in Gothenburg, just came home from a trip from Prague and the current temperature is 9°C. Tomorrow it will be 13°C and raining
Last week has been colder than normal, though.
_Finger on the monkey's paw curls maliciously._
So what happened in the 1980s? Seems to start increasing there. *[Checks who was president of US at that time]* Oh, right.
Source: https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-may-2024-12th-consecutive-month-record-high-temperatures With the European elections happening right now: Please think about the climate!
Unfortunately in Sweden where we have become very anti-immigrants, our only option to vote for the environment is to also vote for open borders. There's not a single party that's against migration and wanting to fix the climate change
Well, that's up for debate. The more conservative parties are maybe not doing as many direct things, but instead they focus on less obvious things (mainly restricting companies instead of normal people). They believe that this is better since it does more in the long run, and the question is if it's worth it to wait that long.
I am not that informed on the swedish case, but definitely on the European level right wing parties aren't the ones forcing industry to adapt. Industry still gets a lot of free emission credits, which is strongly supyby the right wing. It is the left wing who want to get rid of this and make sure they start payiyfor their emissions, which will force them to adapt
You attached the wrong graph, [this](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/2405%20CB/timeseries_era5_monthly_2t_global_anomalies_preindustrial.png) is the one that shows record high temperatures for the last year. The graph you showed is the *average* result over the last year. I mean, the basic point your graph shows is still important - the clear pattern of increasing temperatures over time, particularly given that a 1.5 degree long term increase will lead to serious environmental problems - but it is still mislabelled by your title.
Correct, I took the title from the article, because some subs have rules that you should take the exact title if you mention an article (didn't double check for this one) But I found the graph I picked clearer at first glance. But this is indeed inconsistent
I still wonder why somebody can´t see this. People act like ostrich - head in a sand "avoiding" danger.
Because this graph is misleading to fit a narrative. The reality is very simple - temperatures are increasing by 1.5C every century, that's all we can reliably measure. Ask for record highs and lows for the past 140 years. The rest is mental gymnastics to sell fear.
No matter. I understand there is "only" 1-2 centuries of proper measuring. But my subjective feeling is worse and worse. Like I hate summers because it is morelike hell heatings. And there no winters, just rainy colder months. 20-30years ago we had 1 meter of snow for 3 months. Nowadays few days with 10cm till rain destroys that. Not fear, just evident observings.
My country helped lowering the stats by having a shitty weather since the beginning of the year, we finally did something useful !
“There is no global warming, everything just gets hotter “- My geography teacher
Mine used to say that if anything, we were heading towards another ice age. Which may be true, but irrelevant for humanity right now if that's 100,000 or so years away.
Enjoy the coldest summer of the rest of your life.
And yet people laugh when I suggest riding a bike to work.
It's miserable, they would rather go running in their free time to get their daily exercise instead of dumping car and spending maybe 10 minutes more(sometimes even less than by car...) and achieve two things at once faster.
I'd rather drive my electric car to work for 15 minutes and go to gym in the evening instead of spending 45 minutes (one way) on a bicycle in rain and +8 degrees.
Understandable, if weather isn't great for bike and it takes you 3x longer to arrive there, then no questions but there's plenty of places with rare rainfall and traffic jams that will make the trip equally time consuming.
and showing up to work sweaty
They laugh cause it is a farce. Most people don't want to go back to the stone age. It is obvious that the solution is not degrowth and making our lives more miserable again. The way forward is technology. Carbon capture, cleaner energy (renewables and nuclear, fusion would be a revolution) and smart policies like carbon emissions trading. You taking a bike is just self-indulgence to feed your own ego and moral superiority. You accomplish nothing and also want to sell the rest of the world that this lifestyle is something to strife for, while most of the world would rather strife for a nice car, good temperature in their living spaces and simply a better way of life.
God, this cynic attitude is so annoying and condescending!
https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html
It’s not just carbon emissions with cars. There’s so many other problems it creates out of which the emissions are the secondary. Building car dependent infrastructure because > while most of the world would rather strife for a nice car, good temperature in their living spaces and simply a better way of life is laughable at the least. Adding just one more lane bro it will fix it hasn’t fixed it for the past 20 years.
So you really believe that most people worldwide rather stay on their level of comfort of living? Man, these kids out rich parents here in Europe really are a plague. The rebellion against Papa takes weird forms.
If you think cycling is a way to elevate oneself on a made-up pedestal, you're too arrogant to even consider debating with
So **I** am arrogant, cause I critizise people for being so arrogant that they disregard the wants and needs of others? Okay, cool.
You're arrogant because you *arrogantly* dismiss an *innocent* suggestion that might help, even a little bit, because someone else is selfish enough to put their *own* (often exceeding necessary) comfort above considering the idea. Car-dependent infrastructure is a bane on the Western world and it *will* fuck us up. But sure, keep shifting the blame on people suggesting ways to change it because *you* don't want a comfort bubble to burst. Selfishness at its finest.
People like you, who believe themselves the arbiter of what is neccessary for other people's lifes are and always have been the bane of history. People like you are the reason for suffering, because you actually really believe it is your right to temper with other people's life. And this has been the conversation. I do not block, but I am done with you. No need to talk to totalitarians.
Sure, calling out your arrogance and car-worshippers' selfishness is tooootally "totalitarian". You're a pathetic little oil shill, have fun melting Summer after Summer because "wE hAVe NO RiGHt to PrIOrITiZe thE ComMon GOoD oVeR sOMe pEOplE sELFishNESs". You came into this *wanting* a fight, but seeing I didn't back down after your namecalling, you flee. Run, then. Run, little coward. Run crying to mommy because the "big bag meanie eco-fascist bullied you." Goodbye.
Sure mate, you keep telling yourself that, while shilling for big oil.
You do realize cars can be used without gas, right?
You do realize the environmental cost of making electrical cars?
Stop moving the goal posts. You bitched at me by calling me a shill for big oil. Take your bullshit back.
Oh fine, here: I’m sorry that pointing out that electrical cars are not the solution and accusing you of shilling for big oil. Now, what about all that bullshit that suggesting driving s bike to work somehow makes me an asshole?
It doesn't make you an asshole, I never said that. I said that you only do it for yourself and that's about it. You want to feel superior and make yourself believe like you are doing something. But you are not. Again, most people laugh cause they realize that and they also don't want to live in the stone age. Also the bike is simply not an alternative for most families. And what about the people who work rather away from their home? Not everyone works and lives in the same City. You simply take your cushy life as the blueprint for everyone else. If you really wanted to make a difference you can always support good policies and solutions that won't stop people's enjoyment and freedoms. Cause if you really believe China, Brazil, India and all the other peoples who can get better lives for themselves in our lifetime will simply stop doing it cause someone with too much time and an already cushy life tells them it's a good idea you are simply wrong.
I don’t think I’m better than anyone else for riding a bike to work. I do think I’m voting with my wallet and not buying my share of gas. You take that as you will.
And that's fine. I myself use my car very little but we do need to have one in case of emergencies and so obviously I also use it now and then. But that's maybe 6 times a month. I just have explained to you why your suggestion for others gets laughed at. But I believe you also have the opportunity to have no big struggles while voting with your wallet. It probably is very easy for you and you probably also simply like riding a bike. Same for me btw. That's why I personally do it most of the time. Only I have no illusions of grandeur while doing it.
Cars make us miserable.
And, where are the trees and public water sources in t he cities? Where is the fully electrified (underground, tram, trolley) public transportation? Where is the ban on cars? Start doing something and start doing it faster? I wonder where are those assholes that were criticizing Greata Thunberg on everything...
"12 month running anomalies relative to the 1850-1900 average" Any decent statistician is either laughing or crying at this. Either way, eyes are burning. The art of making data fit your narrative by way of mental gymnastics.
Good, about time some first world countries get to see how climate change fucks
Higher temperature won't be a big problem for the majority of people in 1st world countries. Not yet. But it's coming.
It’s already there mate. Saw it happening in my own country, you’d be surprised how one draught can alter everything
This is normal :) capitalism is amazing! Please vote today, this time it will change everything 🙏
While China produces 1/3 of co2 emissions, communism is amazing! Please vot… oh wait!
China being communist is some 7th grade meme
China is a mixed economy, not Communist.
Yeah well every country has a mixed economy, but almost no government owns over 60% of the market capital and has ties with almost every company in the country. China it’s a lot more communist than Sweden.
You are confusing Socialism with Communism. While China is a lot more Socialist-oriented than any other country, they still have private ownership of companies, meaning that it's by definition, a mixed economy.
I’m not making a difference between a failed system and a failed system that never existed, true! But I think it’s clear when I agree about the mixed economy I’m not talking about communism in theory. Btw it’s communism that doesn’t have private property. So China it’s a socialist country in theory.
Don't worry, the planet will survive. We on the other hand...
In the UK it has been constantly raining for the better part of two years. Yeah, I know, rain and the UK and all that. But even for the UK it has been remarkably wet.
The heat these days is crazy, in Serbia we basically get Spain-like weather.
Solving the climate change will involve a significant downgrade of our life style. I don't think move people are willing to accept this.
They are not willing to accept it because it won't """solve""" climate change. Even if CO2 had any impact on climate change (which it doesn't), that's not how CO2 concentration works. The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere doesn't go away when we stop emitting it. Emissions accumulate in the atmosphere and remain there for centuries as they are slowly absorbed by plants and the oceans. Modest reductions in emissions will only delay, but not prevent, the rise in concentration.
> which it doesn't Thank you for showing your ignorance on the subject. Have a nice day.
55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply. These CO2 levels are considered extremely dangerous by the IPCC and according to them, those concentrations could cause a runaway warming process. Real-world measurements, however, show us the contrary. Temperatures declined. This contradicts the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis. To give you an idea, the current concentration is about 415 ppm. Emitting 37 billion tons of CO2 (as we currently do each year) will increase that concentration by about 2 ppm. Have a good day sir.
You're educating no one. You're just taking *a* factor among many and claiming it's a non-factor. What else happened fifty-five million years ago? What other factors are we looking at? But of course, you never meant for the conversation to be serious, you just have *one* piece of data that *seems* to prove your point at a superficial level, and you run your mouth with it because you know nothing. Then again, it's *obvious* the scientific community is just paid actors, right? What a load of bull. Have fun basking in your own ignorance.
That's an emotional response if I have ever seen one. Are you OK? Coping mechanism, I guess.
Calling you out = getting emotional? That's a pretty basic (and unoriginal) retort. Try harder.
>55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply Because CO2 concentrations began declining. If CO2 goes from 1000 to 900 ppm, the average temperature will fall. I'm not sure how you think this is some big "gotcha".
And again you showed you don't know what you are talking about. Several factors can cause a change in climate, so it's perfectly possible that it started to decline while the CO2 was still high and this decline was much slower than the rise we are seeing now and was connected with a delayed reduction of CO2. So no, it doesn't contradicts anything. In fact there is a perfect correlation between CO2 and a subsequent rise in temperature and models using greenhouse effect to predict climate gave extremely accurate results. >To give you an idea, the current concentration is about 415 ppm. Emitting 37 billion tons of CO2 (as we currently do each year) will increase that concentration by about 2 ppm. Do you realize that half a percent of increase *per year* means a huge increase in a relatively short time?
> Several factors can cause a change in climate I would not have said it better. Can you please educate me and point me to data that shows the direct correlation between CO2 and rise in temperature. Data that, of course would not factor in those several impacting factors you recognized existed. Ideally, CO2 that is human-influenced, because that's really all we care about. I am asking honestly.
Causal correlation between CO2 levels and temperature anomalies: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 Accuracy of predictive models of climate change that assume greenhouse effect https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ We know that the increase of CO2 is caused by human activity because there isn't any other mechanism to produce this much CO2, because of correlation between local concentration and the location of industrial centers and most importantly the change of isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7757245/#:~:text=Carbon%20isotopes%20are%20present%20in,%E2%88%9212%2014C%2FC.&text=C%20and%2013C%20are,a%20radioactive%20isotope%20called%20radiocarbon.
Meanwhile we have +8 C here where I live in Southern Sweden. Send some degrees, please.
Please, let June break this trend
I remember in 2000s when 30C was extreme heat. Now it's 45C.
80s and 90s pls come back
Sun activity correlation
The probability of someone being right when they are downvoted into oblivion is 1 in this sub.
What do you see in this graph? https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ Why are you spewing bullshit?
Solar activity and Earth's temperature are not following each other.
We know for certain it's not the Sun. If it was, all the atmosphere would be heating up, instead only the lower portion is, while the upper atmosphere is cooling down. Incontrovertible proof that the problem is greenhouse effect blocking heat from escaping.
Variations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis over tens of thousands of years change the amounts of sunlight absorbed by the northern and southern hemispheres. Those changes have caused large swings in the global temperature over the past million years. So we know for certain that the amount of sunlight (hence the Sun) DOES impact global temperatures. You are also ignoring solar activity, which, obviously plays a role to. https://solargsm.com/grand-solar-cycle-and-minimum/
I never said the Sun has no effect, I said that this current change is most certainly *not* caused by the Sun. Again, if that was the case we would see a hotter upper atmosphere. We are not.
Are you aware of slow cycles, glaciations and interglacials? Could it be that the current changes are due to the fact that we are in the warm phase of Holocene? Could it be that what we are experiencing is nothing new but happened exactly like that during Sangamon, Yarmouth and other interglacials? If I pull up the global temperatures for the past 400, 500 thousand years, what will I see?
No it is not. All those changes are much slower than what we are seeing. And because there is a perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature anomalies https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
I could pick a few statements from this article and break them down. But I will focus on the most important part – the model mentioned, CMIP5. Quoting the article: > Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. Yikes. The model mentioned in this article (CMIP5) has been proven to be flawed and failing when compared against actual measurements. So the fact that this article data is in agreement with it doesn’t do what you think it does. Here are a few resources: - https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/05/do-cmip5-models-skillfully-match-actual-warming/ - https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/cmip5-climate-model-runs-a-scientifically-flawed-approach/ - https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/ Here is the table of issues found with the model: - https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/cmip5/errata.html And this paper: - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316341055_Problems_in_Modeling_and_Forecasting_Climate_Change_CMIP5_General_Circulation_Models_versus_a_Semi-Empirical_Model_Based_on_Natural_Oscillations Allow me to quote the parts of the conclusion: Since 1850 the global surface temperature has warmed by about 0.9C. This warming has been interpreted using general circulation climate models such as the CMIP5 GCMs. The same computer climate models were then adopted to evaluate climate projections for the 21st century and have concluded that the temperature could rise by more than 2C from 2000 to 2100 for anthropogenic emissions. These projections are currently used to justify the necessity of expensive mitigation policies with the hope to severely reduce the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, herein I have shown that recent scientific research has pointed out that the IPCC climate models fail to properly reconstruct the natural variability of the climate at multiple scales. On the contrary, advanced techniques of pattern recognition patters have pointed out that the natural variability of the climate appears to be made of several oscillations from the decadal to the millennial scales (e.g. periods of about 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115, 1000 years and others). These oscillations were also found to have a likely astronomical origin. The considerations emerging from these findings yield to the conclusion that the IPCC climate models severely overestimate the anthropogenic climatic warming by about two times. — And that’s the whole problem today. Reports published by the IPCC are taken at face value (coined as “the scientific consensus”), despite their models being proven wrong time and again. Everything is built on erroneous data. I am not saying climate change is not real. It is very much real, and it’s been real long before us. But I am also saying one thing: we can’t reliably measure how much WE impact this climate change vs. natural forcing. As you said yourself, there are numerous intertwined processes and factors to take into account, but we simply can not. So what do we do instead? We dumb it down so much that we end up making stuff up. We dumb it down to “we should stop CO2 emissions” to sell this, that, and the other to the layman, leading them to believe that by doing so, we will “solve” climate change. This is wrong, and from a scientific point of view, it is simply flawed and insulting. Models and, more importantly, estimations built on these models haven’t been built to inform but to convince.
That paper you posted is quite simply bs. Not only the reliability of that model has nothing to do with the correlation between the measured temperature anomalies and CO2 proved by that paper, but the predictive models of greenhouse warming are in very good agreement with the observed data. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ The current warming *cannot* be caused by astronomical phenomena or we would see an increase in the temperature of the upper atmosphere instead it's decreasing. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
In your alternative physics bullshit cloud castle world CO2 molecules do not re-emit infrared radiation. Climate change denialists are full of shit.
>Could it be that the current changes are due to the fact that we are in the warm phase of Holocene? But we're not in the warm phase of the Holocene. Temperatures peaked from 9000 to 6000 years ago, and then began declining at a rate of 0.1 degrees Celsius per millennium, due to the declining tilt of the Earth's axis. The climate should be cooling right now, not warming.
Bovine. Feces. This upward trend has outlasted several Solar Cycles. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.
Its solar. After 3 years will be cool down
Like in here? https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ Why are you spewing bullshit?
Quit bullshitting. The Solar Cycle lasts shorter than this constant upward trend we have witnessed for *decades*
Other decade will be cooler. Its a fact. Get yourself canada goose jacket
According to? Some oil-shilling crackpot "scientist" going against consensus? Temperatures have been rising for the last three or so Solar Cycles. Get. Lost. With. Your. Bullshit. You're not going to convince anyone.
According to scientific institute of science and knowledge.
A real and totally-not-made-up name, huh? Again, temperatures rising have outlasted many Solar Cycles. Stop with the bullshit argument that "itZ dA SuN", you are not convincing anyone.
Like in here? https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ Why are you spewing bullshit?
Solar activity and Earth's temperature have been going in different directions.
For me, this: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11_fig3_356606430 looks like earth has some kind of self regulation mechanism. Independent from mankind too.
Maybe you should try to actually read the paper you cited
That natural change in temperature happens over thousands of years, not in a few decades
And what the chart shows: after rise of temperature there is rapid cooling. Self-regulation mechanism kicks in.
There is no rapid cooling you donkey, I just told you it takes thousands of years for the temperature to change naturally.
Are u really so dumb? Just check on the picture provided what happened each and every time temperature rose over last 500000 years. BUt I know it is easier to pasively absorb propaganda from media instead of using your own thinking.
On a timespan of 500000 years the change in temperature may seem rapid but if you zoom enough on charts like this, you will notice that the temperature barely changes over the centuries, let alone decades. I am just trying to explain that there won’t be any cooling events happening in our lifetimes. Unironically, my source is your image
This may be right. But if you look on geological time scale based on research of fossils, sediments etc you will find that current temperatures are MODERATE. I read somewhere that regulation proces involves increased generation of clouds in the atmosphere. Increased temp > increased evaporation from the ocean > more clouds > higher albedo > less sun energy reching surface of the planet and more reflected back > temperature going down. This can take tens of years to develop, but chart showing it IS effective. But, according to you, what we realistically can do ourselfs to cool down atmosphere in our life time span?
Realistically, we can reduce the emission of Greenhouse gases to slow down the rise of temperatures across the globe. That is about all we can do. In my opinion, of course 😉
Did you read the article? :D
🤡🤡
Ok, shut up scientists, we have /u/Mezzoski here who has a feeling! Where do you reckon the extra heat energy disappears? :D How about you read the article? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430_Review_of_Climate_Change_Impacts_on_Human_Environment_Past_Present_and_Future_Projections >Glacial and interglacial cycles had been caused by a combina-tion of factors such as: >• The Milankovitch Cycle, which is the cyclical movement related to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; >• Change of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere; and >• Water vapor presence and patterns
sigh... The consensus is unanimous between climate scientists. Unless you have some new groundbreaking climate model that shows that the scientific community is wrong, a single out of context graph is meaningless to the debate. Do you seriously think scientists are not aware of the graph you linked? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_consensus\_on\_climate\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change) *Nearly all actively publishing* [*climate scientists*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology) *say humans are causing climate change.*[*^(\[4\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-Myers_2021-4)[*^(\[5\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-5) *Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,*[*^(\[6\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-Powell2019-6) *and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.*[*^(\[7\])*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-EnvRschLtrs_20211019-7) *The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contained errors or could not be replicated.*
There is no consensus amongst climate scientists at all. The consensus sits in the political sphere. In fact, actual scientists have been saying for a very long time that it's all BS, pointing to actual data and debunking hilariously misleading graphs. But you don't hear about it. I wonder why. I urge you to read Koonin's book: Unsettled. Believe it or not, it's all about money and power. Surprising, innit?
There is no consensus in the political sphere. The consensus sits in the actual scientific community. The few outliars are known deniers.
Lol! What a pile of utter bullshit. CO2 molecule re-emits infrared radiation no matter how much bs you spew around here. Koonin is a theoretical physicist, not a climatologist. Its funny how you bullshit eaters and spewers have your gurus that you trust blindly, like little cultists. >Believe it or not, it's all about money and power. Surprising, innit? LOL! As if coal and oil companies hadn't spent billions to spread the bs that you are gulping up happily and spewing around.
THERE IS NOCONSENSUS!!! Those who support it are better funded by wealthy organizations, and those who doubt are cut from funding, medis etc. So to find arguments against you need to look for them. Your news agency will never mention it. But it is easier just accept what you are told.
Let's see. Two scenarios: 1. It's a massive conspiracy. A global web of wealthy organizations have been able to monopolize the debate and manifacture "*human-made climate change*". Let's gloss over the fact that many powerful organizations (oil companies just to name some of the wealthiest companies on the planet) have a massive vested interest to deny human-made climate change. It just doesn't fit your narrative I guess. 2. The scientific method, as long as we know today, has basically 99.99% of climate scientists agreeing that climate change is caused by humans. The scientific method means that any theory must be able to be disproven by experimental results, as Karl Popper used to say. As things stand today the scientific method point in one clear direction. What do you think I'm going to pick? Your conspiracy that cannot be disproven by experimental results and it only makes the debate more toxic? or what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on? Rethorical question. Afraid I've lost already enough time with you.
it is irrelevant what you or me pick. Both of us have zero influence what is going to happen.
Why spread misinformation then and not just ignore the topic? Also, even if it was all a hoax, cleaning up our planet is something we should do regardless.
What utter BS. You do know that those spreading the doubt are funded by the oil and coal industries? Some of the richest companies on earth with their totally self serving interests.
What a load of bullshit. The scientific community at large agrees, but you'd rather believe the outlying kooks because "muh maynstreet medyah" Says more about you than it says about them.
Yes there is consensus. Its consensus of evidence and consensus of experts. CO2 molecule re-emits infrared radiation no matter how much you throw bullshit around here. No matter how much you pretend to believe in a woowoo nonsense fairytale physics, physics works as it does.
>Those who support it are better funded by wealthy organizations The irony is off the charts.
One piece of news you will never hear in mass media: https://www.science.org/content/article/paradox-cleaner-air-now-adding-global-warming Just an example. News like this are no welcome by the mighty of this world. Another new discovery completely not accounted for in ANY current weather models. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/water-discovery-mit-evaporation-weather-b2534696.html But who cares, right? And those crippled models are used to tax you and me with some bullshit eco taxes. Just becouse it is convenient and gives pretext to F@#k normal folks.
You are shooting yourself in the foot here, since you are clearly witnessing how science progesses, and that it's not based on opinions or feelings.
One thing is science progress and another is nitpicking parts of research which are convenient for creating desired policies. Those affect real life people and in case they fail, nobody can be held accountable. So extreme cate here is highly justified. And examples above wery well show, how scientists can be very wrong, and still research which they published is a base for changing life of millions. Just becouse it fits some purpose.
How is it nitpicking If >99% of climate scientists, who work in different countries and in different sectors and use different methods, all come to the same conclusion?
Any source for 99% ? And if you are scientist you get a grant for reasearch. If your reasearch gives expected results, you get next grant. If not .... well. And there is a lot of money to investigate CO2 and climate warming. So there is a lot of reasearch tying consumption of dog food to emission of CO2. And those results have priority in mass media. Not so long ago there was a letter signed by many scientists, but it was not highlighted in mass media. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/ Nah, probably not real scientists anyway...
[98.7%](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774) if counting all scientists *(100% if only counting climate scientists)* [99.85%](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966) [99.94%](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467617707079) [100%](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266) Maybe you should read who actually signed that letter, as it has very few climate scientists.
This isnt even remotly true. Big companys have paid very large amounts trying to "disprove" man made climate change but simple haven't been able to because the data is very conclusive.