And yes, we can...
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 :-)
Are anyone saying that amount of CO2 is increasing on the planet Earth?
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.
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
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.
@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)?
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.