The scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected. In the late 19th century, scientists argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could alter the planet’s climate. Over nearly a century of research and data, scientists have come to the conclusion that human activities emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, raising the temperature.
The answer to this question began in 1856 when the results of a remarkable experiment were unveiled by Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette. As climate science and Earth’s climate continue to evolve over recent decades, increasing evidence of anthropogenic influences on climate change has been found. For more than a century, scientists have understood the basic physics behind why greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming.
In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. The existence of the greenhouse effect was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.
The greenhouse effect, which affects the planet’s temperature, has stood the test of time and has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Research shows that companies model and predict global warming with “shocking skill and accuracy” starting in the 1970s. In 1976, Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming, making him one of the world’s leading global warming experts.
📹 How Climate Scientists Predict the Future
Over the years, scientists have made a lot of predictions about how Earth’s climate is changing, but they don’t just pull those …
How bad will global warming be in 2050?
Climate change is a significant issue, with global temperatures increasing by about 1°C since 1880 and projected to rise by 1. 5°C by 2050 and 2-4°C by 2100. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that average annual global temperatures have steadily increased since the 1960s. Nineteen of the 20 warmest years have occurred since 2001, and it is likely that the coldest year moving forward will be warmer than the warmest year in the 20th century.
Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison analyzed temperature records from a statewide network compiled by the National Climatic Data Center, revealing that Wisconsin has become 2°F warmer and 4. 5 inches wetter since the 1950s, with the greatest warming during winter and the largest precipitation increase during summer.
When was the greenhouse effect proposed?
The greenhouse effect, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the sun’s warming effect is greater for air with water vapor than dry air, and even greater with carbon dioxide. The term “greenhouse” was first applied to this phenomenon by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901. The greenhouse effect on Earth is defined as the infrared radiative effect of all infrared absorbing constituents in the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases (GHGs), clouds, and some aerosols. The enhanced greenhouse effect is due to human action increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a more significant natural greenhouse effect.
When did scientists start warning about climate change?
Scientists began to worry about climate change in the late 1950s, with the scientific community uniting in the 1980s to take action. However, the concern for climate change dates back thousands of years, with debates about the impact of human activities on the environment dating back to ancient Greece. As early as 1200 B. C. to A. D. 323, people debated whether draining swamps or cutting down forests might bring more or less rainfall to the region. The scientific community’s interest in how our activities affect the climate has only escalated since then, but the melting iceberg is just the tip of the melting iceberg.
Who figured out the greenhouse effect?
Today’s Google doodle focuses on Eunice Newton Foote, who discovered the greenhouse effect and played a significant role in women’s rights movements. Foote’s work, which is often attributed to physicist John Tyndall, involved experiments on how heat affected air. In 2011, amateur historian Raymond Sorenson discovered a record of Foote’s work at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1856, which is the first record of a physics article by a female scientist. Foote concluded that the highest effect of the sun’s rays was found in carbonic acid gas, primarily carbon dioxide, and speculated that an atmosphere of that gas would give Earth a high temperature.
Who discovered the greenhouse effect in 1924?
Foote and Tyndall, two pioneers in the field of climate change, were credited with measuring and explaining the greenhouse effect through long-wave infrared radiation. Foote may have unwittingly detected the effect through her experiments in the’shade’, but her lack of comment on the results suggests she did not recognize its cause. Tyndall, using long-wave infrared radiation, measured, understood, and explained the greenhouse effect in terms of heat absorption and radiation by gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere.
However, there is no evidence that Tyndall deliberately suppressed her work. The understanding of the greenhouse effect, its mechanism, and implications is a result of the contributions of many scientists, including Fourier, Pouillet, Foote, Arrhenius, and Callendar.
Who first used the term greenhouse effect in 1827?
In 1827, French mathematician Joseph Fourier questioned Earth’s average temperature of 15°C (59°F) due to a balance between incoming and outgoing energy. He believed Earth should be colder, indicating a process similar to the greenhouse effect. A greenhouse’s glass enclosure allows visible light to enter and be absorbed by plants and soil, emitted as infrared radiation. The glass absorbs this radiation, emitting some back into the greenhouse, keeping it warm even when the outside temperature is lower.
The term “greenhouse effect” was coined to describe this process. However, the greenhouse effect’s warmth is primarily due to the physical barrier of the glass, which prevents warmer air from flowing outward. Despite similarities, the overall mechanisms driving the greenhouse effect are more complex and distinct.
When did scientists discover the greenhouse effect?
The greenhouse effect, which affects Earth’s temperature, has been a scientific concept for almost 200 years. John Tyndall discovered carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas in 1859, indicating its ability to absorb and hold heat. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, claimed that burning fossil fuels would release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, eventually warming the planet. His predictions were accurate, and Guy Callendar, in 1938, made the first actual linkage between rising carbon dioxide levels and the Earth’s temperature increase.
Who discovered greenhouse effect in 1859?
In 1859, John Tyndall, a physicist, made a significant contribution to the scientific community by discovering the greenhouse effect, a phenomenon that had been previously observed by Newton but not fully understood. This discovery was widely recognized and has been a topic of extensive research and discussion in the field of climatology.
When did we start worrying about global warming?
In 1988, global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer became increasingly prominent in the international public debate and political agenda. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) organized an internal seminar to identify environmental sectors sensitive to climate change, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established to examine greenhouse warming and global climate change.
The General Assembly identified climate change as a specific and urgent issue, asking the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UNEP to initiate a comprehensive review and make recommendations on climate change.
In 1989, the first significant global efforts were taken, with the Maldives transmitting the text of the Malé Declaration on Global Warming and Sea Level Rise to the UN Secretary-General, the Helsinki Declaration on the Protection of the Ozone Layer being adopted, and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer entering into force. The second World Climate Conference, held from 29 October to 7 November 1990, further advanced efforts to raise awareness of the effects of climate changes.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development convened in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which set a new framework for seeking international agreements to protect the integrity of the global environment. Chapter 9 of Agenda 21 dealt with the protection of the atmosphere, establishing the link between science, sustainable development, energy development and consumption, transportation, industrial development, stratospheric ozone depletion, and transboundary atmospheric pollution.
The most significant event during the Conference was the opening for signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which stabilized atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse gases” to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in Japan in December 1997, aimed to reduce industrialized countries’ emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period of 2008 to 2012.
Who predicted the greenhouse effect in 1896?
In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a pioneering figure in the field of atmospheric chemistry, published two articles presenting the first model of the impact of carbonic acid (CO₂) on ground temperature. This model gained significant attention in the 1970s due to concerns about global warming.
When was global warming first predicted?
In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius posited that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could significantly alter surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. This hypothesis was subsequently expanded upon by Guy Callendar in 1938, who linked it to the phenomenon of global warming.
📹 2. Greenhouse effect – Expert video: Predicting the future
In this video, the speaker introduces the concept of climate modeling and challenges that remain to predict the future. One major …
This kind of thing was what I said I wanted to see more of in the survey! Thank you! I wish I had also wrote more articles about communicating science. How do we effectively communicate the scientific method? Recent findings? Old findings? Misunderstandings? How do we engage people to “think like a scientist?”
Wow! Great article! I always wondered how scientists predicted future climate, which methodologies and tools were used, and how accurate were the predictions. You made the explanation simple and clear enough for anyone to understand. I’ll share the article in my social media and hope that a few climate change denialists will watch it and change their minds.
Hey Science people, want to get more of the general population into saving the planet? Link a climate model to google earth and let people look up their homes to see how climate change will affect them directly. When Jimmy from Florida realizes his house will be underwater in a decade and Cindy finds out her home in California will be uninhabitable maybe things will start to change.
I really appreciate the straight forward approach of this article, I usually ignore climate articles because they’re so often just a giant “OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE” type thing. Thank you for not going that route. I still have some reservations about our models accuracy, simply due to the fact that we’re still missing a lot of data and we just dont have the computing power yet, but I also know, living in a northern state, our winters are nothing like they used to be…things are indeed changing. I will say that I think the biggest risk of rising temps, would be that it triggers a cooling. Warmer temps would indeed cause some serious problems across the world, but we’d survive…an ice age would be absolutely devastating in comparison.
I would like to hear from the best model, you chose it, name it, locate it, say who programmed it, who maintains it, who financed it (and say what is the sea level and global temperature (however they define it) in year 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and so on until year 3000. I want to see the data. All the inputs, and outputs listed every 5 years. Variables with dimensional units and concept definitions. So if you say “solar activity” you have to define it clearly in a non ambiguous way.
No surprise the view count is much lower than all the other articles on this website. A highly controversial subject, especially when the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and we only have weather data going back 200-300 years. Everything before that is pure mystery, speculation, or educated guessing. Unfortunately science isn’t always right. What we need to do, is ensure that our air and water quality improve over the coming decades.
Here in Campbell River, the City is using model projections that sea levels will rise 1 meter by 2100. NOAA tide gauge data for Campbell River shows the relative sea level trend is actually -1.64 mm per year for the entire life of the gauge since mid 1960s. Isostatic rebound means the land is rising faster than the 1.5 mm per year observed in global long period reliable tide gauge data. Models are absurdly wrong.
Most of what this guy is saying is not true. The computers we have are not powerful enough to simulate fluid flow over the entire Earth using physics. A lot of assumptions must be built into the models, those assumptions are not based on physics, but rather are based on statistical correlations. Statistics is not physics. Statistics based models are highly fallible, because statistics are interpreted by the individual implementing them into the model. The Proof that statistics based models lack the same kind of predictive power as physics based models can be seen in the number of different climate models. Each one saying something different, because each team that made them made different assumptions. Also these climate models are constantly changed. They hold the outcome “global warming caused by CO2” constant, and manipulate the rest of the model, and the data until the simulation again agrees with this basic assumption that man made CO2 causes global warming. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. One thing for sure is that models built under such bias constraints will never unravel the truth. We are probably at least 100 years away from having a computer that can simulate the entire Earth’s climate using physics.
Just think about this for a moment – as the article clearly says and you can see on charts, the heating and cooling cycles of the earth are many and rise and fall in 300,000, 50,000, and 15,000 year increments. We’re near the end of a 15,000 year warming cycle right now; the ocean has risen about 400 feet (before industrialization) in our current cycle. This is all well documented and you can easily look it up. But, to say our models only go back to 1850 and there is clearly a warming trend, is true, but is not indicative of the equations necessary to create the multiple tri-heating/cooling periods the earth has experienced. With or without mankind the earth would be warming since 1850. The only way to know if the tiny fraction of C02 that humans create will affect a 300,000, 50,000, or 15,000 year cycle would be to have a model that explains the last 1.2 million years (or more, at least 4 major cycles) and then has enough detail to try and predict tiny changes of 50 to 100 years. Just think about the oceans being 400 feet lower and how that affected glaciers, ocean currents, let alone where was all this water stored and how did that affect weather patterns, plant growth, erosion, etc. No one will know for sure if industrialization has had an effect for another 1000 to 2000 years, and that just based on the tiny 15,000 year cycle.
I highly recommend looking up Restoration Agriculture by Mark Shepard (not the actor). There’s a article here on youtube for those who don’t have time to read the book. The book is a fascinating read though. He’s really just talking about changing farming, but it’s also a far more sustainable model than what we use now.
What gets me is that no one will display their model to the general public. We just have to ‘believe them’. When asked, most climate modelers will cave and say they don’t compute oceanic currents or associative temperatures in their current GCM’s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation and not one model can tell us with Hindcasting how the Last Glacial Maximum occurred or even show that we have still been in that warming trend for 20,000+ years.
Everything from space, the sun, the earths atmosphere, cloud cover, jet streams, ocean currents, moving land masses, bodies of water, uncontrollable events and many more things have an effect on our climate over millions of years. Scientists want to tell the world that data they were able to collect in the last 100 years is enough to accurately predict the climate to come. I think not, especially when the predictions they already laid out fail to transpire.
What is the actual volume of seawater (including ice masses at the poles)? This has to be known before calculating volume by temperature. The volume of water increases with temperature. If this is expressed in percent then one has to realize that if there is more water in the oceans than thought, the quantity of water will increase to an even greater volume with increased temperature. The difference between calculations could mean the difference of dry feet and needing a snorkel..
I truly see no point in debating climate change. Even if you doubt it I see no reason to not take preemptive action just in case since the possible cost of doing nothing is extreme. I for one do not believe in humanity and we will not change. We will not take preemptive action and we will meet a horrible end. I hope the doubters are right (although I do not believe so) because if they are wrong (and they are) we will all suffer for it.
Increased average Co2 would increase humidity globally, which would increase plant production globally, and co2 can actually make plants tolerate heat much better than normal. If we prevented burning down the rainforest, levelled off global emissions and planted a few billion more trees we’d return to equilibrium pretty well instantly.
Decent article, but significant error at the 3:20 mark. You have a graphic showing ‘predicted heating’ with increased CO2 in the atmosphere being between 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius. This is correct. However, just underneath that range you show the corresponding range for Fahrenheit to be 2.7 to 8 degrees. Wrong. Fahrenheit = Celsius x 1.8 + 32. Only pointing this out because people hear these ranges that are use to hearing temps in Fahrenheit and think they will just need to turn to A/C up….wrong. Earth as we know it is D-O-N-E and all the denial in the world will not change this…
Keep in mind people that these models don’t account for unexpected geological and astronomical events that when accounted for would change the entire predicted model. This model is based on the usual change that is currently measured for the earths current climate and its change over time. If for instance another asteroid impact occurred in the middle of the ocean or either of the polar ice caps then climate would change dramatically to the point of unpredictability. The asteroid impact like what happened in the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago is an example of dramatic climate change due to unexpected events.
It’s Standard Unit Number 406. At 1:15 “A few hundred kilometres on the side”. No. The grid is 90 x 90 km and there are 5,000,000 boxes. The time slice is 15 minutes. At some place “computers very fast now, climate models don’t have all they need” (I paraphrase). Not really. Slow computer speed is the main issue. Will require computers 10,000x as fast as the fastest present supercomputers to make it 1/10th of the present resolution in all 4 dimensions. For example, to get a 9 x 9 km grid and scale the other 2 dimensions finer proportionally. Example, Gulf Stream is much <90 km wide some places and grid is 90 x 90 km. A feature can't be defined well when there isn't even a single grid box across its side. Imagine a beautiful photo you take with a camera that has 1 x 1 pixel resolution. It's a single square on the screen, will you pick out the fine detail of that hot air balloon well ? At some place here computer simulation climate models and climate sensitivity 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. Climate models aren't needed to know climate sensitivity because it's been bracketed at 2.4 to 4.8 degrees for CO2x2 for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) by 18 paleo-climate proxy analyses, no computer simulation climate models involved.
I fear SciShow maybe haven’t used their platform quite effectively enough in this article for this topic. Can recommend Kevin Anderson (and his very well referenced website) to really convey how much pressure we (as citizens and science enthusiasts) need to be putting on government for hard legislation. kevinanderson.info/blog/category/articles/
You mentioned a lot of models that were accurate or under estimated bad stuff but how many over predicted bad stuff. What is the ratio of bad to good climate models? People make models for the stock market that can easily predict past crashes and events and those are wrong all the time and fail to predict crashes. Not sure if models are the best selling point for climate change
Fishless Oceans by 2048 – National Geographic More than 5 billion humans will struggle to access water by 2050. – United Nations Amazon rainforest will collapse and largely become a dry, shrubby plain by 2064. – University of Florida Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, habitat destruction, water pollution, ocean dead zones and species extinction. -United Nations FAO According to the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted in 119 countries, avoiding meat, dairy and eggs is the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on Earth. -Oxford University
The more optimistic RCP2.6 and 4.5 predictions all depend on us removing insane amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. 5-10 billion tons of carbon would need to be pulled out of thin air, which is on a scale that we don’t do anything on. We don’t extract oil or coal on that scale. So basically we need to use more energy and industry to pull carbon out of the atmosphere than we’ve burned fossil fuels before. So basically they are pipedreams, right? We need to prepare for +8°C (+4°C by end of century) and massive climate wars.
about 11500 years ago the last glaciation ended, the water level was 120 m below the current level. In the north of Europe ice was up to 3000 m thick. Luckily global warming started without the so-called “anthropogenic climate change” (as there were no cars at that time, shockingly!!! ). Among the modelers is a saying “garbage in garbage out” – 1) climate models do not capture all physical processes, e.g. the clouds; 2) even if they could it would be almost impossible to parametrize it; 3) the grid resolution is still very large – of course, we need to be optimistic rather than pessimistic, … but the best is to be realistic!
Just go look at a newspaper. In Minneapolis in November for example, there is a cutoff year of something like 2003 after which not a single record low has been recorded. Yet, since that time something like 18 record highs have been recorded. It’s obvious that it’s changing to anybody who actually cares to look.
Nobody can doubt that global climate is changing. However, as this article acknowledges, global climate is an immensely complex and dynamic system, resulting from very large numbers of constantly interacting variables and effects. The design of all computer models is dependent on two critical factors: the underlying theoretical assumptions, and the choice of which variables to include and which ones to omit. The underlying theoretical assumptions determine which variables are chosen and which ones are omitted. Furthermore, the models can be run over and over again and redesigned until the predictions fulfil the theoretical assumptions. This is a closed, and self-fulfilling system of thought. It has no more scientific validity than a mystic in a fairground with a crystal ball. To find out more about this kind of intellectual absurdity go to thesleepofreason.net where you will find a range of articles about the irrationality it gives rise to, and the increasing hysteria it is orchestrating.
I wonder how high these boxes are, you mention that they are a few hundred by a few hundred kilometers, this is also what I read on other services online but it seems strange to me when they are a few hundred kilometers high too… I thought the atmosphere was only around 100 kilometers high before we enter outer space, so if the model really uses cubes I would think the model would only be 1 cube high (the thermosphere goes up to 1000 kilometers but I read most of this is in outer space)… Can someone help me out 😅
Spinning with your arms sadly won’t make climat(s) or any chaotic system(s) more predictable. Sure thing you can use models for anything but for climat(s) if you go for 50 years you must wait 50 years to know what your prediction is worth. In the meanwhile don’t modify your readings, there is practically no margin for errors in a climat model.
This is the actual current records for March 2019 of temperature records from satellite data nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ you can download records and do your own judgement on it, but since 1978 – 2019 Result +0.13 C degree per decade 13/100ths of a degree per decade a minuscule amount. For those who want to be more informed.
I think we have a narrative problem. I heard somewhere that people’s convictions are not about who has the better data, but who has the better story. And “We’re all gonna die” is kind of a bad story. And, it doesn’t encourage change. It already feels like we’re doomed, may as well enjoy it. I’m not saying that I’ve figured out a narrative that is more likely to convince climat change deniers, but I feel like we may need one. And I don’t mean a lie, I mean something that is both true and not completely fatalistic. For example, why don’t we talk more about the fact that regulation on CFCs and other gases in the 90s has led to the ozone layer repairing itself. Through collective action, we were able to fix a climat-related problem.
There’s a critical problem with only considering what doubling CO2 will do: a model will not account for other changes that may counter/change the effects. It’s like having a beach ball that has 4 PSI of pressure. You want to know the stress of the ball’s material if there’s 40 PSI, so you model based off of the stress of 4-6-8-10 PSI. You don’t necessarily know if the ball will pop before 40 PSI though. I’m not saying CO2 won’t warm the earth, or that it isn’t warming. I’m just saying I don’t believe the model predictions. But maybe I’m wrong. So I’m perusal this article to try to learn more about it 👍
Earths polar reversal is playing a major role in climate change, why is it never ever mentioned, ever. How can the current models be accurate without factoring in earths magnetic field which is affected by the ongoing earth polar reversal and the sun at grand solar minimum to boot, instead treated (by the models) like this factor has little impact on our climate……electric universe people, Dark matter has failed lets start looking at things without these constraints. NOTE: West Venezuela’s Catatumbo lightning phenomena took a 6 week break back in 2010 a significant blip for a region that historically has had a daily ~9 hour long thunder/lightning storm every evening. Suspicious0bservers
Already been noticing all of this and more, it may not be too clear but it’s pretty obvious what changes are taking effect if u just go outside n observe is abnormal, such as how it’s still going up to the 90s I some places in North America when it should by now be no more higher than in the 50s-60s in the day. Even the sun itself feels more intense, as if ucan feel just how much stronger n more sunlight is coming n getting trapped. I think one thing that MUST be changed is pavement, all of the concrete in the world especially in large cities reflects back so much light with little else to go it greatly increases the surface temperature. We can put up as many effective solarand wind turbines as we want but things like that need to also be delt with else all the other effort we put into slowing climate change will just be a massive waste.
Have you applied the Scientific Method to the predictions of your climate models? Can your climate models reproduce the wide swings in temperature that we believe have occurred over the past 500 million years that there has been multicellular life on earth? If they cannot, doesn’t that show a fundamental lack of understanding about how climate works?
Wait hang on squares? I get ya now. This is sectors. Earth where no sane man has gone before. We of the european Federation need to explore the vast oceans although be vary of scary empires like this mystical China (Romulan empire) and Russia (Klingons) not to forget the USA (Borg). For human advancement.
current climate models DO NOT INCLUDE variables such as total solar activity and effects of comic rays on the atmosphere and weather. If they included this information then the impact caused by humans would be decrease although human activity still contributes to a large part of climate change. Without including all the variables predictions based on those models will be flawed. if you wanna learn more about climate change and how flawed the current models are then check out this article. youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA
QUESTION; is it worth getting a flu shot? I was wondering how it works. I was recently told that if you get a shot, it may not even cover the strain that comes this year….? If I had no shot and ended up contracting “the flu” would my body build up a natural immunity to that strain and I would be less susceptible to it if that particular strain ever came back around? If so it would seem unwise to get a shot because your body would never build a resistance..? I understand as well that when people say “the flu” or inFLUenza virus, this possibly refers to Two different effects.(sinus and fever versus vomiting) So what is really in a “flu” shot, (hopefully not Ice Tea or mind controlling agents), and is it worth it!? Sincerely, Paranoid suspicions Post Script: I really hate needles!
+SciShow Saying humans are making it happen is not correct. We are helping it happen at a faster pace. Saying we are the only cause only turns away people that are not sure about it. Be more accurate and careful of choise of words when talking about these things because whatever people believe it or not is actually important. Getting people who doesn’t understand it correctly in power will make things worse.
Climate model projections are remarkably discordant with observed data. The models are profoundly wrong and are demonstrably not fit for guiding climate policy. Climate is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. CO2 does not affect climate. Build your climate model based on these simple facts and the model projections will be much better.
Just to get idea how hot Earth will get by 2100. Earth will warm 4C or 7F by then. Earth as warmed 1C or 2F in the last 100, that shows Earths rate of warming is also increasing. If the planet warms that much just to show how hot it will get. A 4C warm up globally will make Summers and Winters in New York just like in Florida whole Alaska will feel more like New York. That’s just a good visual example of what a Warmer world May feel like, Summer 2019 was one very hot summer, can’t imagine anything hotter but it will get hotter soon. If your interested in science and the science behind climate change these are good websites science.gov NASA.gov NOAA.gov NOAA.ncdc.gov Climate.nasa.gov climatecentral.org climate.gov
You talk about someone in the Maldives being concerned about the ocean swallowing their country. You make it sound like rising waters are necessarily bad news for the Maldives, and I understand that, but is there any effort, in the Maldives, to maybe adapt to rising waters? The technology used in submarines demonstrates that it is possible to produce oxygen from sea water and wind turbines make it possible to generate electricity.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Questioners of climate change do not think that the climate is not changing. The climate is definitely changing, no one can deny that. But the questioners of it are asking whether humans are the cause, or if it’s a bad thing. Of course when you look at immediate events, yes, it can be seen as a bad thing. But know that we are actually currently in an ice age right now. There have been periods of warmer weather in between periods of glaciation, and this is one of them. Now it seems like we are exiting this ice age. Temperatures are rising and ice is melting. But before the ice age that we are currently in, there was no ice at the poles. Fossils can even be found near the poles with tropical-like species. Ice melting might get rid of species like polar bears and penguins, but it is all part of nature and natural selection and species dependent on them for anything will adjust. So ice melting, in long term thinking, is not a bad thing.
You actually contracted yourself about the air movement and weather patterns. If and when the air currents change that means the weather patterns change. Meaning some wet places will get more wet but actually more wet places will become more DRY not WET and dry places will become more WET not DRY, and when you account for the extended growing seasons, that would give time for the dry places to become rainforests and visa versa. And we have evidence of this happening many times in the past. Again making it weird you guys missed that considering you mentioned scientists know alot about long ago past climates.
When most people reference the Bible and quote Genesis 9:11 wherein God promises not to ever again destroy man, there’s a qualifier: — to not destroy man by flood. There’s no mention of not using fire ‘aka’ nuclear war or runaway global warming — both of which, in reality, are man induced. Neither is there mention of not letting man destroy himself, which might violate the tenet of Free Will.