And yes, we can...
bpinard last edited by
I'm glad I didn't give you any money.
Konrad Gola last edited by
I only can agree with all the messages and can't add anything, except that I'm very
dissapointed that you guys at Windy, whom I thought intelligent, converted to this Global Warming religion, FUJ!!
Cyber Weather last edited by
I'm disappointed to see this weird advertisement for global warming on this site. Try solar science for a change. This is just BS and fear. Please don't push an agenda that is nothing but VS and PC. Push science.
surfbigisland last edited by
What the hell is going on here? I just can't believe there are so many ignorant comments. They're all ignorant, and you just provided them with empirical data that even a child could understand. So sad, paranoid whacko conspiracy theorists. Even if they're the last living creatures on Earth, their egos will never let them ever admit that they were wrong and victimized by the conservative media outlets that they worship. Fortunately, while they are the majority on this thread, throughout the world, they are a tiny percentage of people. Too bad so many live in the U.S., a country that has way too much clout.
A general reminder for all users:
Windy does not create any forecast data but instead only visualises forecast and actual data received from various third party providers.
The source of the data is displayed on Windy.com and users are welcome to check and verify the source data for themselves.
ALSO, let's be sure to keep this topic polite and respectful please.
AND, whilst this topic does have a political component (one of many components regarding this topic) posts focused solely on political matters, conspiracy theories, and/or personal attacks against other users are NOT acceptable.
Thank you :)
This topic seems to be explosive. I understand that many people are against
"global warming religion", but think about it pragmatically.
If we call "Warming" the situation when "climate is changing rapidly and it is caused by mankind",
then there are 4 options:
A. Warming is not true and we believe it is not true
B. Warming is not true and we believe it is true
C. Warming is true and we believe it is true
D. Warming is true and we do not believe it is true
If we want to do any action we should behave pragmatically, economically, rationally.
Consider the damage control. There are 2 faults among these options: B. and D.
If B. is our reality we may waste our energy and money uselessly and our children will laugh at us in future.
If D. is our case, it means that we are borrowing our wealth from future generation, our children will hate us.
From this point of view the "panic" about Warming is completely understandable.
If we think about what is caused by humans: Daily weather is caused by humans. If you live in big city,
the temperature, moisture, evaporation, albedo, everything is massively influenced by human and you can measure it.
If you look at countryside from air, you can see that the terrain is completely changed by human. It also affects daily weather.
People have power to change the landscape, to destroy or plant whole forests.
Greenhouse hypothesis is about composition of atmosphere. I do not want to judge whether that hypothesis is true
or false. But people are moving fossil fuel from land to atmosphere. That is fact. One day all fossil fuel
will be moved from land to atmosphere, it will not magically disappear.
50000kg of airliners fuel means exactly 50000kg of waste. It is taken from land and put to air circulation.
Rising temperature is reality. Question is: Is it caused by our technical revolution? Nobody is sure, but there is correlation.
Do not cry, do not panic, just think about A, B, C, D.
@TZ Dekuji nacelniku ze ses mne zastal :-)
DavidToma last edited by
Are anyone saying that amount of CO2 is increasing on the planet Earth?
Gkikas LGPZ last edited by
When I was student, the CO2 concentration was 330ppm and now it is close to 420ppm.
Then there is a strong correlation between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature.
But global warming deniers will explain that a correlation is not a proof of cause and effect link.
Smithsonite last edited by
The "yes we can" slogan tells me all I need to know, unfortunately. Such a great site - I expected better from those who operate it.
Thanks to @pavel-neuman for adding this article: https://community.windy.com/topic/8734/why-it-doesn-t-matter-what-the-climate-models-tell-us-about-the-global-warming
SteffenR last edited by
Temperatures always had a wide range in the past. This is proven by ice core samples with records over 600,000 years (antartica cores). Comparing these temperatures with the last 150 years is not science. Our complex climate models do not work with the past.
SteffenR last edited by SteffenR
@Gkikas-LGPZ Can you explain with your model the temperaturs in the past? No you can't!
Is an increase of 0.6°C significant compared with the past (~10°C)? No!
Is it science to take a tiny chunk of time (150 years) and compare this with 600,000 years (ice core samples antartica)?
Gkikas LGPZ last edited by
The diagram I presented is about CO2 MEASURMENTS from the '60s till today,
It is not temperature forecasts.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now ~400 ppm.
Samples from air bubbles trapped in ice, show that CO2 levels
never surpassed 300 ppm during the past 800,000 years.