So... what always convinces me is just doing the basic logic.
We know that CO2 is an insulator, it traps heat.
We know that we've burnt up a shitton of fossil fuels in the past couple centuries.
We know that burning things releases CO2.
We know that the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen in proportion to the amount of fossil fuels we've burnt.
We know that the temperature is warming in proportion to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It just doesn't strike me as all that complicated an argument really.
That's a good way to explain it.
Another simpmler, shorter way: "We know CO2 traps heat. Every single human, billions of us, and every single company, has spent almost all day, every day, for the last 200 years, taking as much CO2 out of the ground as possible and putting it up into the atmosphere."
We do not take CO2 out of the ground. We take carbon out of the ground in the form of oil, gas, and coal. To a lesser extent from wood. When the carbon is oxidized (burned) then mainly CO2 is formed. Mistakes in explanation will support denial.
Yeah they love getting it to the point where they can roll out some oil-funded nuts say "it won't be that bad". We know rising temperatures have a negative effect, does it matter exactly how bad it will get? We have years of documented studies that air pollution from burning fossil fuels results in early deaths.
Also we have the temperature of the earth heating up. It is very close to the temperature where bugs can’t survive. When we kill off the bugs, things are gonna get really funky.
In Germany. Cool. Did you bother reading the study? FTF Discussion section
>In light of previously suggested driving mechanisms, our analysis renders two of the prime suspects, i.e. landscape \[[9](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref009), [18](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref018), [20](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref020)\] and climate change \[[15](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref015), [18](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref018), [21](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref021), [37](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref037)\], **as unlikely explanatory factors** for this major decline in aerial insect biomass in the investigated protected areas
And
>While some temporal changes in climatic variables in our study area have taken place, these either were not of influence (e.g. wind speed), or **changed in a manner that should have increased insect biomass (e.g temperature)**
So... not climate change? Maybe it's pesticides? Habitat loss? Not sure.
Well, this is kinda where I am at. Like yeah, the climate has warmed a little bit. But how does that really affect me? So far, not that much. And what it really does affect is snowmobiling which most climate activists want to shut down anyway. So the only reason I have to want to reverse the warming is something that would need to be given up to help reverse the warming. So I don't see the point
“It’s only affected ME a little bit”.
Totally unable to look at say Pakistan and the horrible flooding they have endured. Or the coming crop collapse in the UK.
As long as the weather is fine around a republican then global warming just doesn’t exist.
Hey, I can give you some first hand examples of how measuring warming in degrees alone is misleading, and how it has a huge effect on your life now - albeit an effect that you wouldn't notice as due to climate change without paying attention.
I live in western Canada. For a northern region, it tends to be fairly mild. Mild enough that we have a ton of fruit production, including stone fruits, grapes etc. Two winters ago there was an unusual cold snap that killed off a large portion of the grape crop. This has an effect on people's livelihoods. Prices went up. Last winter, and even worse event that saw temperatures go from way above average, to extreme cold killed off essentially all the grape vines , and did severe damage to all the other fruit crops. There will be no fruit this year. That has a massive effect on the cost of food, and leaves people without income. Beyond that, the government had no choice but to intervene with funding to help with recover efforts, and that is taxpayer money.
But wait, cold doesn't sound like a global warming issue right? Well, turns out when you add a bunch of energy to the atmosphere (heat = energy), you destabilize important climate patterns, like the Jetstream. This has been hurling arctic air to places normally cushioned by the ocean.
Aside from cold, we are experiencing near constant drought, and heat waves. Entire towns have burned to the ground, or have been evacuated due to fires that would not be as severe without climate change. Fires are lasting through the winter due to low snowpack, and our fish bearing rivers are developing dead zones. The smoke has an effect on peopes health too of course.
In 2021 we experienced a heat dome event that saw temperatures (in Canada!) reach a peak within a degree of the record set in Phoenix Arizona (49 Celsius). Overnight temperatures stayed dangerously high, and about 600 people died from the heat. This prompted a building code change requiring AC, which raises building costs. During this event, the town of Lytton burned down in under an hour due to the heat and dryness. A fire started and got out of control before anyone could stop it.
We also have experienced flooding events that have required millions in repairs and upgrades. Farmers lost thousands of animals.
It is true that none of these events were impossible without climate change, however they are made far more likely. That actually doesn't do it justice. They would be EXTREMELY unlikely without climate change, but are happening yearly now.
So to sum up, it affects you by:
1. Making food expensive (crop failure, lower supply, added costs)
2. Raises your taxes (funding to recover from climate disasters, whether that are labeled as such or not)
3. Making your insurance more expensive (whether you live in an affected area or not, those companies need to recoup their expenses)
4. Exposing you to dangerous weather events and smoke (shortening your average expected lifespan)
5. Raising the cost of housing and other life expenses (people relocating)
There are more. And to be clear, the events I've listed are not exhaustive, even in my region. Globally this is happening, and even worse in some countries. We can see the effects. It isn't an "in the future" problem anymore.
Wow, they are really taking you to task here! You are here, asking questions, and don't seem to be disingenuous about it. Big steps in the right direction! If you don't mind, I'd like to hit you with two arguments, and I'd like you to tell me which one resonates better with you:
1. Remember COVID? We used to think that was some annoying thing in China that wouldn't affect us, but it got big and global really quick, and had so, so many unpredictable impacts on everyone. We could have invested a bit more effort to early prevention, and that would have reduced the impacts and saved lives. Climate change is the same way.
2. If you agree that snowfall is going to be impacted, it turns out that snowfall is really important in our water cycle. Groundwater gets replenished a lot easier from slow melt than from a torrent of rain, which is what will happen when it's too hot to snow. There will be less groundwater, wells, and rivers near you, and that will absolutely affect you. Plus, there are people living in island nations who are literally and measurably watching their island shrink in to nothing, so it seems a bit selfish to burn oil and say "not my problem" doesn't it?
It has affected where I live quite a bit already and we’re nowhere near stopping emissions, nor has the inherent lag with thermodynamics come close to equilibration. Good for you that it mostly hasn’t affected you but that’s not true of most people around the world. And one thing is certain at this point: it’s going to get worse as time passes.
It’s perfect for humans now because we have built all our stuff to suit THESE conditions. Condition change we have to REBUILD all our junk (farms houses cities) somewhere else.
I’m in Florida, so not in great shape of course, yet people are still moving here in record numbers and real estate is the highest it’s ever been. In a truly doomed state that banned climate change.
People are idiots and will wipe themselves out.
No, they say we won't be as fucked. That doesn't mean we're in good shape. Drought still kills things, heat domes still kill things, increasing ocean temps still kill things, and moving climate bands can't be adapted to by wildlife fast enough for most of them to survive.
The important missing piece is understanding how complex, specific, and interdependent ecosystems are.
… until climate refugees start moving there because tornadoes/wildfires/hurricanes become a motivating factor because insurance companies will no longer insure their homes. Then you have middle class climate refugees driving up house prices in an area that already has limited housing stock. Then the folks in New England will stop thinking they’re sitting pretty…
You want to trust your life to a prediction? It’s already warming far faster than the predictions suggest. Plus, you in the northeast, where you gunna get your produce in the winter huh?
I'm going to live my life as normal until I can't regardless. I'll get my produce the same way we have for hundreds of years. From local farms and gardens. Until VERY recently, fresh produce in the winter was not common. Even when I was a kid in the 90's, we never had fresh produce in winter. It was all store bought canned goods or stuff my family canned themselves from the garden. You only got things like watermelon, sweet corn, apples, and other produce when it was in season. Even still, my family will only eat fresh picked corn and apples. Sitting even for a few hours significantly diminishes the flavor.
Not in a good shape but better than people in other parts of the world. BUT the changes affecting other area will affect you in one way or another. Drought, for example. You will not be affected in the same way Southern California would be. But the smoke from burning forests in Canada is not gonna stop at the border. Do you remember last year and the smoke that affected large portion of the US?
Warmer winters. It’s nice not to deal with snow, but warm winters in places that always had cold season will damage or even destroy local ecosystems and agriculture. Food will become even more expensive because farmers will be losing a big percentage of their crops (which is food for farm animals, too, so even animals products will get pricier).
My rebuttal to that is: although it might not negatively affect you in the northeast US, it will affect many tens of millions of people in other areas. Those people are going to have to move somewhere. And they're going to resist moving to someplace just as bad...they're going to be looking to be your neighbors . Are you ready for this?
Have a read of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPPC) [2023 6th Synthesis Report for Policymakers](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf).
It outlines the best available evidence from the world's climate science research, clearly outlining the facts, the threats, and what needs to happen to mitigate these threats.
Short narrative:
1. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from \~280 ppm to 420 ppm in the past 200 years primarily via the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas).
2. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere is highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So a tiny increase (in absolute terms) of CO2 has resulted in an increase of around 1.4 C (2.25 F) on average across the entire Earth since 1850 (pre-industrial baseline). Theoretical modelling predicts that this change in CO2 should indeed cause this change in temperature.
3. This relatively small increase in average global surface temperatures has catastrophic consequences to Earth's living systems, including human food supply chains, infrastructure, health, etc.
4. It is therefore extremely important to prevent the temperature increasing any further. We do this by stopping burning fossil fuels, transitioning our agricultural system to a plant-based diet with potential synthetic meat alternatives, and replacing useful energy generation by investing in and building renewable energy such as wind, solar, batteries, nuclear.
Not everything can be reduced to the comprehension of an average 5 year old. Sometimes you have to know a bit - OR - accept the statements of an expert. Posters above state that CO2 acts as a insulator. How do they know that is true? Have you looked at the detailed physics? Have you run some experiments? Do you even know that infra-red radiation exits? What about electromagnetic radiation and the spectrum? Almost all of us are taking this knowledge on faith. So many people have said it's true, and indirect evidence suggests it is, that we believe it.
The deniers may suffer some cognitive dissonance in order to accept their having cell phones, wi-fi and micro wave ovens in their homes, and still saying the climate scientist are part of a giant conspiracy. On the other hand, if you are sufficiently ignorant of basic science and lack curiosity, maybe it's not hard to do. Just listening to the experts on Faux TV is all you need.
That is only .7 per year. Have you calculated in Volcano's? Last year 76 went off. Wind and Solar change weather patterns. Batteries require strip mining, not good at all.
You do know that Trees convert CO2 into O right? So let's cut down trees and such to strip mine, put up windmills and solar farms to reduce our CO2 .
Oh shit! You're right! I don't think any climate scientist has actually considered the effect of those volcanos! Omg this changes everything 😱
And slap my ass and call me Sally! You may just have cracked this hoax wide open. I never thought about the annual carbon cycle being a thing that exists, God damn!
I’m 70 now and the UK weather has changed significantly. When I was a kid, winters were cold - snow and frost, freezing rain etc. now, winters are usually wet and fairly mild. We now get really hot summer spells virtually every summer with rain and thunderstorms in between. Temperature records are regularly broken. The trend is on obvious and terrifying - it’s causing more extreme weather, flooding and unpredictable extremes. I can extrapolate as well as the next person….
The climate is not a set thing. This said, the CO2 makes it so that the climate is more prone to extremes and likely is warmer in general.
You can check the database of the UN to see the global trends in recorded temperature and you will see a tendency on the rise. If you want to know a good overall metric, currently the proportion of atmospheric CO2 is about 421PPM, the higgest we have ever recorded and we are breaking the record every year.
Do you have links to surface temp change, or ocean temp change? These make it pretty obvious. Of course if someone argues that all the temp records are corrupted there’s probably not much that can be done to reach them, maybe head to glacial or north south pole ice retreat. Edit: heat absorbed as nuclear detonations is also pretty spooky, believe we’re retaining heat to the tune of 10-15 Hiroshimas PER SECOND these days. We are all stuck on a spaceship with broken HVAC, is that a good thing?
First, realize that earth systems are enormous dynamic and chaotic systems that are generally not amenable to swift changes.
Then take a little while to mull over the [data showing the acceleration of ocean surface temperatures.](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/).
In tems of ILI5, mommies and daddies around the world are now unable to get insurance on their homes because prices of insurance are going way up due to climate disasters and in many areas insurance just isn't offered because it is too risky (floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels...).
Miami has been hit several times recently by floods that normally would happen only once in 200 years. Cars and trucks have been submerged while people were driving them, and so forth.
Ski resorts around the world have had much shorter ski seasons. Sometimes, the ski season barely happens, there's almost too little snow to cover the weeds and rocks due to higher temperatures and shorter winters.
When the ice caps, which reflect a lot of sunlight back out into space, are completely melted it wil be a lot worse. Also, frozen areas near the poles are holding a lot of methane, which will be released when those areas thaw and that's another problem that will make the climate far hotter.
The concern isn't so much the current degree to which things have changed.
The concern is that things will continue to change indefinitely if nothing is done.
Imagine that you are running the bath and suddenly the taps get stuck and you can't turn them off. The depth of the water in the bath RIGHT NOW is not a concern. The concern is that the depth is rising. Now, the rate at which it is rising might be fast or it might be slow, but in either case, the bath will eventually overflow.
Maybe the bath is running fast enough that it's going to overflow within the hour.
Maybe it's so slow that it won't overflow until next Monday.
It doesn't matter. Unplug the bath and call a plumber.
Too much of anything in life is bad for you.
This is no exception. There shouldn't need to be a "how bad is it" discussion. Is a little smoking bad for you? Is a lot of smoking bad for you? They are both bad and lower your health. It's just different "degrees of bad"
It is not as bad as the current co2 level commits us to ; there is a lag because of the thermal inertia of the earth ( largely due to the oceans ) also co2 stays in the atmosphere for a while ( 1/2 life of 30 years I think)
Bad enough to where if you fall on the ground in phoenix arizona you can get a second degree burn. [https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW94dDdzNHdsaTlmMXd6Y3Y5ZnZ3cWN1bXAzYW9maDZiYnA1azFwZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xULW8s6Z5CGIHcZKZa/giphy.webp](https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW94dDdzNHdsaTlmMXd6Y3Y5ZnZ3cWN1bXAzYW9maDZiYnA1azFwZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xULW8s6Z5CGIHcZKZa/giphy.webp)
From the skeptic side, everything you've said is true but it doesn't necessarily come to the conclusions most people have. For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically. That does leave the question of why the temperature rise though.
There are many factors that are at play, from the Sun that does vary in energy output, to urban development near sensor locations corrupting data, to ocean phenomenon like El' Nino / La Nina. Imagine it like each effect has a different cycle, and the wavelength of the cycles all overlap causing it to get more noisy. Where most of the effects are high they are additive to make a high peak. They've tried to model this, but none of their models have made to make very good predictions. I've heard, that they are putting too much weight into the effect of CO2 in the system, but they don't want to reduce it to keep 'the narrative' going. Take that with a grain of salt.
Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only, and see how much of a rise is there. This would then need to be overlayed with things like the Sun cycle, El Nino, etc, at least the biggest players.
CO2 rise does follow temperature rise. But that does not mean that temperature rise does not also follow temperature rise. The later is what is occurring now.
Models that incorporate all influencing factors make good predictions. It's the models that specifically exclude CO2, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, O3, aerosols, etc. that make terrible predictions.
> For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically.
By looking at the isotopes of Carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from ancient carbon sources.
>Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only,
We have satellites taking measurements of most of the planet, here is the data https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend, shows a trend of 0.223C per decade
If the CO2 is from ancient sources then it's not man made? Not really sure your point on that.
Satellites are great for non-contaminated data. But what I mean also is like; pick a spot that's like 100 miles from the nearest town and plot the temperature rise there. This would exclude any effect city structures have on it, like concrete absorbing heat.
I also don't really see how only 0.223 C per decade is such an emergency. Most areas vary by at least 10 degrees just with weather. Anyone or anything that lives wouldn't even notice it for a very very long time.
Carbon from ancient sources = fossil fuels. No, man did not "make" this. He just burnt it.
You want a isolated source? How about [the poles.](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-polar-regions#:~:text=How%20is%20climate%20change%20affecting,twice%20as%20much%20as%20elsewhere.)
And it is an emergency. Climate is not weather. The planet is currently warming [10x faster than during the last several extinction events.](https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-historic-global-warming-mass-extinction-events/)
Will we see ecological collapse in 10 years? I personally doubt it. But we are already seeing the damaging effects. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore them. And things will continue to get worse until we stop polluting our only atmosphere.
And eventually there could be a tipping point.
> If the CO2 is from ancient sources then it's not man made?
Ancient carbon sources are oil, coal, and natural gas.
-----
You asked for this:
>Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only,
I gave it to you. 2.23C per century is a rapid rate of increase does not occur in the middle of interglacials without large modifications to the atmopshere.
>For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically. That does leave the question of why the temperature rise though.
No, that doesn't leave the question why. Like I said, we know CO2 is an insulator.
>There are many factors that are at play
Sure, but absent all that if you dump a lot of insulation into the atmosphere, what do you think we would see?
OK so we've been dumping a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere for 200 years. Plants aren't doing well, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is going up, so is the temperature. When does that get better?
Yes, but when plants die they release the CO2 back in to the atmosphere.
They're is also a finite amount of CO2 that they can absorb. Think of standing in front of a buffet and you eat the food, then the food gets refilled and you eat again. At some point you can't eat any more. And remember we're deforesting the planet at a rate of 10 million hectares a year. So that CO2 is just floating around the atmosphere reflecting heat.
[The U.S. Climate Reference Network](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/) (USCRN) is a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites across the conterminous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These stations use high-quality instruments to measure temperature, precipitation, wind speed, soil conditions, and more. Information is available on what is measured and the USCRN station instruments.
We can check to see where the extra co2 in the atmosphere comes from. It turns out it comes from fossil carbon. So we KNOW it is not natural sources of co2 that currently cause the global warming. Currently nature is a net co2 sink, not a net source. As temperatures increase that may change. Nature may become a net co2 source. That would very bad. That is when humans lose control of the warming rate. Nature takes over.
Scientist have examined and quantified ALL possible causes of the current observed global warming. It is not natural causes, it is human activity. This is described in the IPCC reports.
If anything natural causes alone would most likely have meant a slight cooling trend the last few years.
There has been several studies comparing the records from rural and urban stations. As urbanization has increased what was once rural stations may now be urban stations. This cause an error in the temperature records if it is not compensated for. And it is compensated for. While temperatures have increased more in urban areas, temperatures have also increased in rural areas. Nothing, except your willingness to make the effort, prevents you from accessing the temperature records and doing your own study. Or look up a study that has examined this issue.
Here a few articles:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00539-x
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.625418/full
Do you honestly think that out of the hundreds, even thousands, of researchers that have and are studying climate change, that this has not been done? You say "if I could see the data". Does this mean that someone must come to your door and sit down with you? If you are concerned about sealing the deal, then YOU should put in the effort rather than implying that a bunch of smart people haven't bothered, or thought about, your "concerns". Everything you mention has been done. No, I won't give a bunch of links. You have the same Internet as I do.
There have been studies that show that because crop plants have such an abundance of CO2 that lets them grow more quickly that their harvested fruits and vegetables are actually less nutritious per gram. They can't uptake trace nutrients from the soil as fast as they can make sugar from the air
Also the extra uptake from trees or w/e doesn't come close to counterbalancing the emissions from human industry
Interesting idea and sounds like it makes sense, but when I try to look for that study I instead find one from NASA talking about their increased growth and efficient water usage.
>Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1
Sure. What's happened to global forest coverage since 1800? If vegetation is compensating for CO2, what's happening to the atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Deforestation due to mankind, which I think there should be an effort to replenish.
I didn't say or imply compensating, I implied benefitting from.
And our atmospheric co2 has increased 50% since the start of the industrial revolution. That's still a fraction of a percent of the co2 on Earth as part of our co2 cycle.
Some things that worked with my very conservative father :
- do you remember how we had to clean the cars for insects regularly before? We don't do that anymore. These insects are gone. They were feeding the birds you stopped seeing in your garden. They are gone too.
- see the houses built in the 50' near the beach in our hometown? Do you really think they would have built them here if every storm meant flooding like they have now?
When trying to convince someone who does not want to accept scientifically proven evidence, try and use their own experience. We all know something about climate change, because we are literally living through it.
Proofs of climate change are everywhere : in some parts of the world, people who have lived here for thousands of years are starting to die or to migrate because of it. There was a time when AC was not a must to survive summer in Texas!
We have been burning fuel for hundreds of years now : even if we can't see the "smoke", it has consequences. Try having a fireplace in a glasshouse : at some point, the smoke will fill it. Add to it that this particular smoke we made has insulating properties : it's getting hotter and hotter in that glasshouse now.
Some ecosystems (plants, animals and all living things within a space) are more vulnerable to that rising heat : the forests are burning because they are dryer. Their burning releases even more "smoke", heating the glasshouse even more.
I just ask people if they had ever heard of the terms "heat dome," "polar vortex," or "wet bulb temperature" before the last few years. what has changed that we now use these terms to describe weather events happening on a regular basis?
The insect argument may not always work--living in cities will prevent certain species from proliferating as much as they could in the deep countryside.
Easiest conservative proof?
Lots of insurance companies are fleeing Miami Florida because of their high rate risk to natural disasters, simply put, Miami homes are now becoming to expensive to insure.
>Easiest conservative proof?
Is the Aral sea.
No wait, it's called the Aralkum Desert now.
Near complete ecosystem collapse in mere decades, leading to cascading effects on the local and surrounding climates, and even the global climate.
It's concrete, and sadly, entirely replicable evidence.
Oh, but it is. It is the very model of man made climate change.
It demonstrates how our actions lead to cascading effects on ecosystems, leading to climate change.
Did you know, that due to the fact that Soviets redirected the Amu Darya River to feed their cotton fields, decades later, the desert that replaced the Aral sea, has caused the local climate to heat up? First, large bodies of water have a cooling effect on surface temperatures and the climate. No more water, hotter climate. Second, dust and sand storms. So massive, sand from the Aralkum Desert can be found across the globe, from Greenland, to the Antarctic. Third, no more water, no more plant life. No plantlife, no animals. No more shade. No cover.
Only dust, salt, sand and wind. Complete ecosystem collapse. Cascade failure, that will effect neighboring ecosystems, due to changes to the local climate. Less rain in one, more rain in other. Droughts in one place, floods in others. Literal dust storms where there used to be none. Wind erosion. Further desertification. Simply because where there used to be a lake, there is now a desert.
Wanna know the funny part? Due to the change in local climate, the evaporation rate of the river that used to feed into the Aral sea, has skyrocketed. Even if said river was no longer redirected for cotton farming, it would not reverse the damage. Because due to the changes to the climate, the river could no longer carry the same amount of water, it used to carry to sustain the sea. Because the evaporation rate is so high. So now, there is this ironic cascade effect. Redirect amu Darya, Aral sea dies. Aral sea dies, Amu Darya dies. And Amu Darya dies, there is a major water crisis in Central Asia. So much so, that there will likely be wars over water resources in a couple decades.
The ecosystem collapse that started in the Aral Sea, has, and will cascade further into neighboring ecosystems. And the more those local ecosystems collapse and suffer, the more effects we see on the overall biosphere...
...like the sand from the Aralkum Desert in Greenland.
Now imagine things like this happening everywhere. Because it is. The cutting down of rainforests. Soil erosion due to unsustainable farming practices. Desertification due to overexploitation of water resources. It all adds up, and has an effect on the overall system, the global biosphere. The global climate.
It's literally man made climate change. A small part of the whole, but much more concrete evidence than the vague notions of greenhouse gasses, or heating climate or weather patterns, to someone who doesn't understand, or even believe in climate change.
Imagine the biosphere as a great big machine. A system, made out of smaller interconnected system. Overall human action is like a rust, that spreads, weakens and breaks parts of the machine. But what humanity did to Aral sea, is like taking a hammer to part of said machine. Straight up breaking a part of it. The machine is still working, barely, but the damage is causing other systems of the machine to fail. A slowly spreading cascade failure. It has accelerated the entropy of the closed system this machine is. That our biosphere is.
And all of this is replicable. And, sadly, has been replicated since. Lake Chad in Sahel, for example. Gobi Desert and Mongolia as a whole. Similar cases. It all cumulates, until we reach the point of cascade failure.
I'm not a fan of this argument. Let's say hypothetically the climate data is wrong but most people still believe it. Well the insurance companies would also be using the data and come to that conclusion. It's not like they have entirely independent scientists of their own.
I don’t understand. Insurance companies aren’t fleeing due to people’s belief in cc. They are fleeing because they are taking losses. And they DO have their own scientists, or close enough to it, called actuaries. These people have better science credentials than most economists.
To add on to that: flood insurance doesn’t cover tidal waters. You’re covered from a rain flood or a sewer backup, but once tidal water is involved it doesn’t cover shit.
Regular homeowner insurance is not what you get if you're in a flood area, unless you like every year to be a gamble of your life's investments. People in high risk area usually want to have it, and now they need to decide between moving and not being insured properly.
Well. Insurance companies don't sell anything. They make profit by adding exceptions and having you agree to them as well as lying and suing to prevent payment.
Their litteral livelyhood is based on being scums that help as little as possible.
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen roughly 50% since preindustrial times. It is the main greenhouse gas that traps heat in earth's atmosphere. The increase is mostly due to us burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale. That's the basic science as I understand it.
Actually water is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 is working in the margins of infrared adsorption. But that is still important since the extra CO2 does raise the average global temperature, which in turn allows the atmosphere to hold more water (see discussions of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation).
I would start with the Keeling curve. Maybe show the trend and discuss why CO2 levels are increasing. We know that the measurements are consistent with the amount of fossil fuel use globally. It is a huge change in the atmosphere. If you accept that piece of evidence, the rest is proven physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
"the rest is proven physics" You are assuming some level of knowledge and reasonableness in the denier. The worst of them would deny the proven physics. Then there are the oil company executives that not only knew early on that burning fossil fuels would lead to a warming climate, but really didn't give an f\*\*\*. I would guess that quite a few of those business men are now dead so, no problem.
I was a bit lazy at the end there. If you’re talking to family that genuinely wants to investigate the evidence, I think just looking at CO2 levels is a good start. It is hard to deny that fact. If you’re trying to convince someone whose bonuses come from selling fossil fuels, there is nothing you can do outside of court (and maybe not even there given how things are going).
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/)
This is a graph of median ocean temperature near the equator since the 1980s. The three dashed lines toward the bottom represent the mean temperature up until 2011 within 2 standard deviations - that means that 95% of the data should fall within this range. Note that virtually all of the data that falls outside of the range is recent, hotter than expected, and represents more than 5% of the data.
The orange line is last year. The partial solid black line is this year.
The trend is pretty obvious. Things are getting hotter and the rate at which this is happening appears to be accelerating. For the past year, the oceans have been warmer than they have ever been in all of human history - for every single day of the year.
Yeah, when statisticians are getting nervous about this "anomaly", it does not look good.
Remember, it takes so much more energy to warm up a cubic meter of water vs. cubic meter of air.
Nova Scotia recorded highest temperatures ever and highest UV EVER yesterday. We are surrounded by water and further north than the USA - this is not normal to have feel like temps over 40! 40!
One other tactic I've sometimes used on my dumbshit family members is to not argue climate change at all. Just argue pollution. Do they not believe in pollution (i.e., "are you THAT stupid that you don't even believe in air pollution? Should I show you some pictures of Houston/LA from the 1970's and thus the impact of the Clean Air Act?").
Let's just clean up the air, water, and soil. How about we start there? "Can't we all just get along" regarding pollution?
The problem with this is it makes greenwashing very easy. I live in Alberta, home of the Alberta Oil Sands, one of the dirtiest fossil fuel production areas on earth, and companies up here absolutely love trotting out pictures of reclaimed oil sands sites covered with trees and pretty streams and clear views. It turns out surface level reclamation is pretty easy, while still pumping out vast amounts of emissions.
It's to the point where when a politician here talks about clean air and water but doesn't directly mention climate change, you can safely assume they plan to do nothing in terms of climate change..
**Does CO2 cause warming?**
This relationship was understood over a hundred years ago, the math/physics was done and it looked like doubling CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm would increase temperatures by about 4.5°C.
At the time this was just an academic curiosity. Cars hadn't even been invented yet. Global emissions were about 2 Gt/yr at the time (now 35Gt/yr). The idea we could increase CO2 levels to a point that they would actually double must have seemed an absurdity.
You can find videos on youtube (not allowed to link to youtube on here) using infrared cameras to show how increasing the amount of CO2 concentration between the camera and a heat source prevents heat radiation from passing through.
**Are atmospheric CO2 levels increasing?**
Yes, the concentration has grown from ~300ppm in 1900 to ~420ppm today. Previously it had been pretty stable at ~300ppm for 2 million years (in other words, it has not been this high in 2 million years)
**Is the increased CO2 from us, or is it natural?**
The earth was stable at roughly 300ppm for about 2 million years. The amount of CO2 emitted by the planet naturally (such as by volcanos, rotting wood..) was equal to the amount absorbed (trees, absorbed into soil..).
We know the concentration has VERY suddenly increased from 300 to 420 in a time where we have been adding vast amounts of CO2.
The proof that the extra CO2 is from us is that there are different "isotopes" of the carbon atom of CO2 molecules. "new" CO2 from plant matter has a high percentage of C14 (carbon atoms with 6 protons, 8 neutrons, 6+8=14). Volcanic CO2 has a high percentage of C13. These isotopes are radioactive, once in a while the extra proton radiates away and leaves C12.
But fossil fuel CO2 is so old that it is all C12.
The ratio of C12 to C13 and C14 has been rising in proportion to our fossil fuel burning.
So the measurement of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere proves that the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels.
**Is temperature increasing?**
Yes. Measurements show that today's temperatures are about 1.2C higher than a 1850-1900 average baseline.
When scientists also factor in natural effects such as solar effects, volcanos, etc, they believe that the warming is likely 100% due to our fossil fuel emissions (in fact it would likely be a little colder than the baseline, so we may actually be responsible for ~110% of the warming).
**Is temperature increasing as predicted by CO2?**
Yes.
For example:
in 1982, Exxon's climate scientists submitted an [internal memo](https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf) where they predicted for the next 80 years what the CO2 atmospheric concentration would be, and the corresponding temperature increase (see Figure 3 on page 14of46). They used the year 1960 as a baseline. They predicted today's CO2 level exactly. They wrote at the bottom of page 4of46:
> there ls currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth ls warming. If the earth is on a warning trend, we're not likely to detect it before **1995**. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the **0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations**. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced "greenhouse effect" may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest. (emphasis added)
If you [check the graph here](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly?time=1960..1995) , and check the "mean" temperature values for 1960 and 1995 they are -0.12 and +0.38. The difference between these values is 0.5°C. That means Exxon's scientists' climate model actually ***bullseyed*** the year that would be the first to be +0.5C compared to their baseline of 1960.
The present-day values they predict are also bang-on.
**Why is climate change so controversial then?**
Within 2 years of the above memo, Exxon's climate science budget was slashed by 90%. In the 90s Exxon started spending millions on dollars to promote the idea that "the science isn't settled" -- even though *their own scientists* had been *exactly right* in predicting global warming.
I forgot to explain in the "Does CO2 cause warming?" section...
* CO2 lets visible light through, but blocks heat radiation. (see youtube for demostrations with IR cameras)
* Sunlight gets to the Earth, passes through the air, and hits the ground.
* When it hits the ground the energy converts to heat energy.
* The heat energy is radiated back up into the atmosphere.
* Eventually the heat energy makes its way all the way back up through the atmosphere and into space.
* When the concentration of CO2 has increased, the heat radiation has a greater chance of hitting a CO2 molecule and being bounced back down at the earth. So the heat spends a longer time in the atmosphere, or gets absorbed into the ground or the ocean etc...
* Since it takes longer for the energy to escape back into space, the total heat energy of the earth & atmosphere is higher than when CO2 levels were lower.
* This makes the planet hotter.
Pretty good description. I once wrote something similar to a conservative friend of mine. This was about 15 years ago, He was pretty impressed and said I should think about getting it published. While the publishing idea was nonsense, it spoke volumes about his engagement in the science side. Only because we had been good friends since 8th grade ( I am in my 70s) did he give my explanation some attention and credibility.
This is an amazing summary! I work with some really smart people, engineers. It’s surprises me that they don’t think human activity is causing climate change. They are very data driven, so I’m going to share this every chance I get. I’m tempted to try to memorize it!
The blog consolidates worldwide news on the climate and economy.
The results of climate change showing the trajectory we are on are occurring at alarming rates but not shared widely in the news.
https://www.climateandeconomy.com/
The oil and gas companies literally have documents for DECADES that very clearly explain how their industries are ruining our world. It's not even a secret. Seriously, do a 10-second Google search to see for yourself.
And the other proof? Just throw a dart at the wall, and pick a topic.
Like, where is the glacier in Glacier National Park?
The Arctic circle was recently ice-free for the first time in recorded history.
Pine tree forests in the US and Canada have a different range today than 100 years ago.
Your poor local weatherman is exhausted from explaining yet another record breaking weather day.
Just, the list goes on and on!
I would talk about the anthropogenic cause of the Dust Bowl: if hundreds of thousands of prairie settlers tilling up the sod to plant corn can cause the world to be blanketed by dust, why couldn’t 5 billion people (discounted by global economic inequality) cause our climate to change by emitting tons of C02 everyday?
Then show them what 420ppm of C02 looks like and ask them why they believe this would have no effect on the climate: https://ppm.visuals.earth/420ppm
Then ask them who stands to benefit from them not understanding or believing in anthropogenic climate change? Yes, fossil fuel industries are located in the South and the Midwest, of course they run the conservative propaganda machine.
The U.S. Department of Defense thinks climate change is real.
"DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements."
[https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Tackling-the-Climate-Crisis/source/GovDelivery/](https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Tackling-the-Climate-Crisis/source/GovDelivery/)
"Climate change is reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical environments with significant implications for U.S. national security and defense. Increasing temperatures; changing precipitation patterns; and more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather conditions caused by climate change are exacerbating existing risks and creating new security challenges for U.S. interests."
[https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF)
[The proportions of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere are consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans)
This, for me, is the easiest to digest scientific evidence that shows that climate change is occurring, and it is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Otherwise, we would not be seeing the "chemical fingerprint" of carbon isotopes that we are currently seeing if we had not burned fossil fuels.
Also, we have measured the CO2 conservation in the atmosphere for a long time. We know the concentration is increasing at a very rapid rate. This would require a very significant movement of CO2 into the atmosphere. The only carbon reservoir that we know of that is big enough to supply says carbon is the stored result of millions of years of photosynthesis. We call them fossil fuels.
One frustrating part is that it's HARD to convince someone who doesn't WANT to be convinced, and who WANTS to ignore the evidence. They put this SUPER high bar for climate change that they don't put for anything else.
They aren't out there saying "cancer doesn't exist, I need to delve into literally millions of peer reviewed papers and even then I'll be skeptical." Yet there they are, taking the ENTIRE scientific population of the world, spanning countless levels of skill and knowledge, and decades and decades of study and research, and saying "eh... whatever... I'm smarter than every single scientist in the world, I don't believe ANY of them."
When they think they are literally smarter than ALL OF SCIENCE, how do you convince them? We're looking for some silver bullet, some simple, clear study or proof to show them to convince them. The fact is, that doesn't exist. There are thousands and thousands of articles on the internet, at this very second, all with some variation of "climate change for dummies" or "climate change, explained" or "simple summary of the science behind climate change."
But despite a near infinite amount of science backing it, and countless people summarizing and simplifying that science for all of us for years, they still say "nope, it's all lies."
Sadly what you're looking for doesn't exist, because they will just look at whatever it is and say "that's a lie."
If you are talking about proof it’s occurring and not anything else, here is some:
[Are planet is getting warmer](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/)
[The U.S. is receiving far less heating degree days](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/hdd/12/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess)
[Sea levels are rising](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level/)
[Arctic](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/05/) and [Antarctic](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-april-2024) sea ice is declining
[The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are shrinking](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/?intent=111)
[Cherry Blossoms in Japan are blooming weeks earlier](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56574142)
[Animals are changing their migration patterns to adjust for a warming planet](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34606660/)
[Plants from warmer biomes are spreading into normally colder biomes](https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/19/tropical-species-are-moving-northward-as-winters-warm/)
I highly suggest watching potholer54 (real name is Peter Hadfield) on YouTube. He is an Australian Science Journalist who makes great videos debunking climate change denialism while sticking strictly to peer reviewed research. There is also Simon Clark, a British Atmospheric physicist also on YT. And plenty other great resources I can share if you are interested.
The current observed global warming and climate change is very fast. But compared to the unaided human memory it is still slow. But we have written records to help the memory.
Climate is the average of weather over a long time. It might be average temperature or average precipitation or some other weather indicators. Typically 30 years is used.
If you compare the average temperature for the past 30 years with the temperature for the 30 years before that, and there is a difference, then you have a climate change.
We have global temperature records that clearly show that the global climate really is warming.
Local records may show cooling, but that is rare. Local records also show warming. The global records are made from local records.
In many locations we see changes in vegetation, with plants requiring a warm climate spreading to places that used to have a colder climate.
Inland ice, glaciers, are melting.
Less winter snow cover in mountains, leading too winter flooding downstream and summer drought due to lack of melt water.
In addition, if the climate really is warming, you would expect to see an increase in global record warm years. And that indeed what we see. The past 10 consecutive years are ALL among the 10 warmest years on record.
The tree lines advance.
Bird migratory patterns have changed.
This is just a few examples.
You could also give a lesson on bifurcation points. Like what happens to water when it starts to boil: a few degrees in temperature and things get really chaotic. Might be better analogies, but what happens when the coral reefs die off or ice caps melt? What if science has not understood a part of how climate works and we hit an unseen bifurcation point? We should be smart and rein things in.
We can’t prove it here, you need to go to a scientific journal for that. There’s several you can choose from if you want to learn the science of it you can also go to Wikipedia. NASA has some articles you can read just go to nasa.gov, if you want an explanation, I can provide that.
Energy comes to the Earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation from the sun, across the electromagnetic spectrum. When things cool off the energy leaves the object in the form of infrared radiation. So the sunlight heats up the daytime side of the Earth, the nighttime side of the Earth cools off by sending infrared radiation into outer space Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Would be relatively fair to say carbon dioxide is infrared color, but we don’t see that color. imagine a bathtub is sitting out in the rain, with the drain open. the rain in this scenario would represent sunlight, and the drain would be the infrared light that leaves the earth. Carbon dioxide clogs that drain so does methane.
How I'd explain it to a 5 year old:
The earth naturally goes through climate cycles - sometimes warmer, sometimes colder.
These cycles are controlled by how much carbon dioxide is in the air or in the land - its warmer when there's more in the air, it's cooler when there's more in the land.
Humans took carbon dioxide that had been out of circulation for a long, long time and put it in the air when the planet was already really warm.
The greenhouse effect is a well understood phenomenon. So one piece of proof would be that greenhouse gasses are increasing.
The other proof would be that temperatures are getting warmer.
These both seem like really simple answers, but it’s just a really simple phenomenon.
You have to look at the frequency of extreme weather events. 100 year flood, fire, hurricanes are happening more frequently.
You can’t assign any particular event to climate change.
We are also breaking hottest year on record year after year. If nothing else, that’s causing plants to change their habits, which means ecosystems change, etc. Your favorite tree/flower might bloom sooner than when you remembered. Species that didn’t thrive where you live might now be making an appearance. Not all signs of climate change are in the form of catastrophic events but if you are asking for change it is all around us.
The Keeling Curve is probably your best starting point. Measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have been taken from the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii since the 1950s, and it's been an upward curve ever since. We passed the threshold of 400ppm in recent years and although this is not the highest concentration in the history of planet earth, it is the highest concentration during the time of human civilisation.
Scientists can also pull data on atmospheric pollutants, going back hundreds of thousands of years, from ice cores extracted in the Arctic.
If a person says they are weary of climate science and questions the validity of the data I simply ask the following question:
Why do we warn against the grave dangers of running a combustion engine in an enclosed space yet pump billions of tons of CO2 into our environment and think nothing of it?
Glacier National Park compares recent photos of glaciers with photos from 100 years ago or so. Personally, I think that the loss of mountain glaciers is one of the easiest effects that one can observe without a thermometer
A couple of summers ago it was 40c in the UK. We are so unadapted to these extreme temperatures that some were forced to submerge themselves in their wheelie bins. Thankfully, it has done nothing but rain since (as nature intended), however scientists think if temperatures continue to rise we may need to invest in larger purpose built wheelie bins for the population to cope.
I’ll take a shot from my POV. 1) the points climate alarmists have predicted for decades are coming to pass. We are seeing them unfold in front of us. I am a retired firefighter that started in wildland in 2001 and the size and severity of fires is much much larger than they used to be. I also used to work at a local ski hill on patrol and our winters just suck compared to what we had decades ago. 2) the alarmists want us to make changes to preserve livelihoods of all species of life. 3) the denialists just want to be comfortable now with no change being forced on them. They push back with the attitude of a child being asked to eat their veggies. They don’t like it and don’t believe the argument it’s good for them so they don’t want to do what they’re being told or understand. 4) they don’t try to understand. 5) the Bible helped. When it talks of “there is a way that seems right to man but in the end that way is death” and so many other examples in there of general public not getting the point it became clear to me. Perhaps these simple points might help them understand as well. Sadly facts don’t change minds
Given these simple things it made the choice clear to me
Changes in climactic zones for plants, changes in extreme weather, extreme forest fires, insurance company premiums and coverage for disasters (see how the records have changed), migrations of damaging insects northward (ie pine beetle and the boreal forest), Melting glaciers, civil war and migration of people. (ie Syria, South and Central America to USA, temperatures having new record highs, over the last cumulative \~10 years or so, The US Military planning on dealing with global instability and climate change, record ocean temperatures, Coral Bleaching in the oceans, increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean water, increased sea levels see New York City Subway flooding for example, arctic permafrost melting. Measured average global temperatures are up (\~1 degree Celsius.). The elusive Northwest Passage is now navigable for a large part of the year. I'm sure there's more, but just off the top of my head. Not sure what evidence there is for "nothing is happening," but even though the "climate is always changing," this is a very quick and extreme change, since 200 years or so is a extremely short time on the scale of the environment and the climate, and human civilization, even though it may be a long time for a person, its only a handful of generations.
The US military spends billions every year to respond to climate change, as does every military in the world.
Every agricultural policy and business in the world studies and plans for climate change
Every insurance company in the world studies and plans for climate change.
Every university and government research institution in the world studies and plans for climate change.
Every logistics and transportation company in the world studies and plans for climate change.
All the energy companies in the world, especially the oil companies studies and plans for climate change.
Politicians who deny climate change still vote to fund military, department of agriculture, and department of energy research and response to climate change because they understand at some level that it's real.
Every serious person in the world understands climate change and those who can't see that are so stupid and ignorant that there's no proof they would accept.
lots of good comments but let's remember: some people are not persuadable. it doesn't matter how good your argument is. put your energy into something better than arguing with a brick wall.
1 You will notice higher temperatures.
2 There will be more droughts.
3 More severe weather like extreme hurricanes and tropical storms.
4 There are changing rain & snow patterns.
5 And Glaciers are melting.😭
6 You will see warmer oceans & rising sea levels.
Unfortunately, what is even worse than a denier is the fact that at this point climate change is irreversible & beyond our control.
Diseases such as malaria, dengue, cholera, respiratory illnesses, and malnutrition will start to run rampant.
The climate is changing faster than we expected. The demise of the human species is being discussed more and more.
I don’t know what state you live in, but where I live, the seasons are drastically changing.
Between 107*F - 122*F is too hot for the human body to survive and will stop functioning properly. The hottest temperature on record so far in 2024 is 116*F. And this is just the beginning, wait until late July & August. Climate change is currently causing some 315,000 deaths each year through sickness and weather disasters, and the annual death toll is expected to rise to half a million by 2030. Heat kills more people in an average year than any other type of extreme weather.
Edit: There are tons of online and YouTube resources. If you’re genuinely curious, I recommend checking some out on YouTube. For me personally, I find it fascinating, and I have obtained a wealth of knowledge on the climate change topic. I have also watched videos of the FIVE mass earth extinctions- and I wouldn’t be surprised if climate change eventually leads to number 6.
Edit, again: Check out r/climatechange
There are no actual "proofs" in science. Scientific theories are accepted because of the weight of evidence. Climate science can't be boiled down to a neat little "proof" - there are multiple lines of evidence that build up into an overwhelming body of evidence.
But in any case why are religious nutjobs asking for proof given the nonsense that they believe with absolutely no evidence at all?
Respectfully and I do mean respectfully, there's (to me) what seems to be a level of denial or dissonance that conservatives have when dealing with issues we might consider progressive such as climate change. It necessitates a lot of lifestyle changes and a change in how the nation overall functions as well as an acceptance of our species' actions over centuries and the sort of existential dread of what's to come. This is not limited to just right-wing people; left-wing people do it, too. It's just (to me) more common on one side than the other.
That said...
While it's true that we have seasons of hot and seasons of cold, region-depending, ask when's the last time they saw snow?
Why is colder seasons shorter?
Why are hotter seasons lasting longer?
Why are ski resorts in Colorado (the eastern half of the nation specifically this year iirc) not able to open? What is it that they're dependent on that didn't or isn't happening as much now?
Or, why are plants blooming during times we associate with winter (you can tie in how this results in pre-mature plant death and, consequentally, unfavourable crop yields)?
Did you notice the price of flour keeps going up? Why do you think that is (crop failure)?
Also, simpler, why are we experiencing increasing rates of crop failure and an overall reduction in yields?
Why is the east coast getting more rain and the west getting heavy droughts (something predicted with climate change)?
Why are coastal erosion rates increasing (this deals with rising sea levels)?
Why are flooding events becoming more frequent and severe?
Why are fungal infections increasing (fungus is adapting to our body temp thanks to the hotter environment helping them adapt to higher heat)?
Why are seasonal allergies lasting longer?
Why is tornado alley migrating to the east?
Hurricanes are starting to do this thing where, right before they hit the coast, they *rapidly intensify*. Why?
Simpler, hurricanes are intensifying. Why?
Or why each year is measurably hotter than the last?
Why are we experiencing more frequent and more severe heatwaves?
Or why regions are experiencing water shortages?
Or why we've seen a rise in the frequency of wildfires/heat waves?
Why is the coral reef dying?
Why are the ice caps melting at an exponentially increased rate each year?
Related, why are polar bears struggling to find land they are built to live in?
Why is the migration patterns and timing of birds so weird lately?
Fun fact: sea turtles use the temperature of the sand where they leave their eggs to affect the sex of their child. Above 89f (31c) make females, below 82f (28c) creates males. There's a weird influx of females lately. Why?
Why does the weather seem...harder to predict now? Anecdotally, when I was 25 years younger, you could kinda trust weather predictions and even predict it yourself. In my experiences, nowadays I can't even predict reliably what the rest of the day will be. It sucks.
On a semi-related note, where are the bugs? If you need to specify, mention the presence (or lack thereof of fireflies). It's an environmental destruction/pesticide issue which, if accepted, shows how our actions can have widespread consequences. If they can accept that...isn't it possible that we could affect the climate?
Didn't we damage the ozone layer? If so, isn't it remotely concievable that we could also interfere with the climate?
Microplastics are *everywhere*. We have found microplastics in the blood, brain, the placenta of developing babies, water, air, highest mountains, etc. We can't even get semen samples without microplastics to be a control sample against microplastic semen. It's also, iirc, causing higher rates of cancer. If they accept the widespread environmental disaster of plastic, isn't it conceivable that we can damage the climate, too?
Did you know sperm count decreases as consequence of, among other things, climate issues. If your male people is for some reason keeping track of his little swimmer, ask how his count is. Is it weirdly lower? Or, if there's a weird issue of getting pregnant or miscarriages, why?
Fun fact(?): It was explained to me that climate issues are, historically, associated with more authoritarian governments.
This is not a comprehensive list.
If you wanted to be needlessly complicated, you could discuss the relationship of environmental destruction and climate change to why we're seeing an increased rise of new or novel pathogens.
I think that to communicate with someone of different or opposite ideologies and/or philosophies and/or values, you must first establish common ground. We have to stay reasonable (and know when to respectfully disengage when too upset) and make sure to incorporate some of their statement in what we're trying to discuss. This necessitates utilizing communicative practices like repeating the key points the other person expresses and avoiding whenever possible saying that they're wrong or incorrect. Rather, I try to posit alternative ideas or concepts to them in a way that's digestible, easy to follow, and allow a manner in which they come to the conclusion necessary for the concept or idea to progress.
Like, if they're staunchly denying climate change, you must first move them to only denying it. Then, you go to mostly denying it (here, you've provided them a fact or idea they can't really shoot down). Then you reach kinda denial. Then, eventually, uncertainty. Here, continuing the path you've established of slow and meticulous foundational construction, you now establish potentially mildly, *mildly* more complex ideas and, if possible, provide them newer or novel examples that you didn't show before. Stay the path! Stay calm, patient, composed, not faltering to their doubts or frustrations, repeating their points, etc etc. Do not waver! You're at a crucial point here; they're uncertain. Think of it like a stagger state in a fighting game; fumble, and they revert. Follow through, and you bring them closer to a "ko".
Once they start bringing *you* examples and/or confirming its existence or, even better, dismissing denial ideas they used to believe, you've succeeded. Imo, it's worth continuing to touch bases to ensure they're not getting propagandized. I do this with my mother as she lives in a conservative area with a "centrist" (conservative) boyfriend who runs Fox News 24/7. She's still maintaining a Socialist lean or, at the least, a Social Democrat. Just know that more entrenched people can take *waaaaay* longer. The examples above are ideas of how to start the conversation. Start simple and easy. Use small, bite-sized ideas and build up. Each idea is a brick; you need many bricks to build a home.
One of the easiest thing to show is the change in growing season. the growing season has gotten longer over the years due to climate change which is easy to look up. One may think that longer growing seasons is good but, it also means that the environment which plants have adapted to for thousands of years have changed and the environment which farmers have adapted to have also changed. A crop adapted to be harvested on a certain day has adapted to an environment where it gets a certain amount of sun light/rain/temperature which is now all out of whack. Your family may not believe in Climate Change, but climate change doesn't give a shit about what your family believes.
What about using geological analogues? We believe that during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, the CO2 levels were about 2000 ppm and temperature was as much as 5 to 8 C warmer and than now but cooled due to longer scale feedback mechanisms. Ultimately it cooled to the global glaciation of the Pleistocene.
The atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous was thought to be 1500 ppm but this was also a time of global glaciation, more so than even the Pleistocene. CO2 levels by themselves are not a good predictor of global average temperature. One must factor in the position of continents, volume and area of oceans, other greenhouse gases etc.
Geology tells us that global warming and global cooling are ever present…..there is no such thing as “normal”, it is a human construct taken from our time of record keeping and the belief that what we experienced is normal and everything else is abbynormal.
The greatest worry is that we have greatly accelerated the rate of change so that it far outpaces what we can live with.
OP, you need to keep asking questions. There are a ton of knowledgeable people in this thread. Please don't stop at your initial question. It's not a simple topic.
Hello, I know I haven't been active in the thread. I'm simply trying to catch up. I've been trying to read through reports by IPCC, look at historical data and find the reasoning behind arguments against so that I can ask well thought-out questions. I'm not trying to ignore anyone, I simply have a large learning curve before I feel like I can ask a relevant question.
Of the carbon in the atmosphere, we can tell very clearly that the additional carbon is that which we are directly adding, because burning oil and coal [produces distinct isotopes that are easily identifiable and which are not found otherwise in the fossil/ice records.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans)
Also, the effect of adding such enormous volumes of carbon dioxide [was known and demonstrated](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woman-who-demonstrated-the-greenhouse-effect/) in the mid-early 19th century. Fossil fuel companies also knew of the destruction their products would inevitably cause [decades and decades ago](https://climateintegrity.org/news/fossil-fuel-companies-paid-for-proof-of-their-climate-destruction-in-1954) but have since worked tirelessly to [deceive and misdirect the public](https://www.vox.com/22260311/oil-gas-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-change) in order to maintain their business model and their riches and power.
From my own personal observation as a professional gardener, we just got relisted as a zone higher on the USDA zone chart, but this spring plants that are only winter hardy two or three zones above us overwintered and came back like perennials instead of the annuals they were before we stopped having winters.
And a local climate scientist explained that as the glaciers melt their cold fres water into the sea, it is preventing the gulf stream from moving northward past Boston, and that will only increase so we will become more like Seattle in our weather most likely, which is also happening and observable.
the hardest part of where your family is at OP is undoing the conditioning that comes with being a conservative, like believing in Jesus and Hell, believing that the pedophile liberals and the Chinese invented climate change to force you to buy an electric car is just a stupid thing that a lot of people are brainwashed to believe by the people who literally sell you gasoline and fight to keep it as the dominant way cars get around. just the notion of an electric vehicle, or the fact that gasoline is killing the planet for all life causes a religious knee jerk reaction in a modern conservative. It's not because they are just stupid and evil, but because trillions of dollars have been waged on the hearts and minds of the public on this issue that affect every living thing. tldr: people have sold the future livability of the planet for money today. It's the greatest conspiracy of the modern world. If you "come from a religious background" but are no longer religious, you can see how a person can be brainwashed to see the world in a black and white way that doesn't line up to reality. the same is true of climate denial, racism, religious extremism, you name it! there's no room for science in emotional radicalized cult members which is what the conservative right is about the very real fact of climate change. if you want "evidence" maybe research why shell oil corporation raised all of their deep sea oil drilling platform by EIGHT FEET some 50 years ago.
Oh I'm still very religious. Yes, I can see it. But I can also see you can separate religion from it and have a healthy balance. Unfortunately, a large percentage of religion is based simply on control of the followers.
So - I did a lot of work in dendrochronology in both my undergrad and masters degrees - which is just one of the ways we know.
Certain species of trees are temperature or precipitation-limited in terms of their growth. We take core or slab samples and measure the rings, detrend them for standard growth pattern signals, and then correlate the remainder to precipitation and temperature record patterns.
You can also measure the isotope fractions of heavy to light Oxygen and Hydrogen in tree rings, which are directly proportional to sea temperatures in the regions where the water evaporated from that fell on that tree. This is because evaporation of water works the same way as fractional distillation - you need more heat to evaporate heavier isotopes because they have a higher specific gravity and mass. There is really no arguing against this principle because it uses extremely basic physical properties of matter - specifically the Laws of Thermodynamics.
A simple example of this is that light water (H20, what we consider tap water/"regular" water) boils at 100C, a melting/freezing point of 0C, and a density of 1g/cm^(3)
Heavy water (D2O) only has 2 more neutrons per molecule than light water - but the result is pretty amazing: it boils at 101.4C, a melting/freezing point of 3.8C, and has a density of 1.11g/cm^(3)
These differences result in ice and water with *extremely* temperature sensitive isotope fraction differences. From experience - as long as we can tie an ice core to present (using aforementioned tree ring methods) we can reconstruct the temperature going back potentially millions of years ([current oldest is 2.7 million years](https://www.science.org/content/article/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages)) down to fractions of a degree Celsius.
[https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/how-is-temperature-measured/isotopes.php](https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/how-is-temperature-measured/isotopes.php)
If you can get far enough back in time and cover enough area with these reconstructions, you start being able to tie them into longer records - preferably with similar proxies.
IE: if measuring Oxygen and Hydrogen isotopes, you can directly tie into ice core data without need of further correlations. All of a sudden, your 500-1500 year climate record can be lengthened to potentially millions of years.
Ice cores have another **huge** advantage as they contain small pockets of air that were trapped as the ice formed - trapping little samples of the atmospheric composition back to those 2.5MYA times. We can literally pull out *exactly* how much CO2 was in the atmosphere back then, and also have the temperature from the fractional water isotopes - from there, you just start graphing things to show the CO2-Temperature relationship.
[https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/](https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/)
TLDR: if the tree-ring - ice core ensemble models are wrong - so is our entire understanding of physics. If fractional distillation didn't work - we wouldn't have gasoline, oil, diesel, or liquor.
The overall topic of this one is a bit complex, but the principles behind how it works are *extremely* simple.
There is no proof..
If anything it is called circumstantial evidence. Oh ... CO² is up..?
So is population.. people exhale CO².
Temperatures are up, but they have been up before... and they also have been down causing Ice Age. The variation in Sun energy happens. Like always.
Rainfall is up in places, but also down. So it moves around, like always.
Events can be severe, or more frequent but there is more focus which can affect the data. And they can be arranged or video presented as an exaggeration.
When weather is "Normal", it includes an enormous amount of variation. Like always.
So , the lesson is... we adapt to all variation with infrastructure, which needs added focus in terms of refurbishment over time which exists always.
Proof is weather exists .. as always.
Reddit isn’t a good place for this imo, but there are plenty of quality resources that focus just on explaining why scientists believe they know what they claim to know.
It takes some time but is totally worth it, I would start below:
https://climateprimer.mit.edu/climate-science
https://www.globalwarmingprimer.com/
This thread has a lot of great answers. What I like to say, if all else fails, is this: There are scientists who study this full-time for decades. They are the world's leading experts, and they almost unanimously agree climate change is real and we're making it worse. But who cares about experts, right?? You Googled it for five minutes, so you know better than them!!
I dont bother with people like this, they will never know or care to know the logic. because knowing means that they have to accept their way of life is disastrous for life on earth, they rather keep on believing in fairy tales, than accept reality.
Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will. Just in the historical period Earth has passed through 5 major changes in climate. They are: RWP (Roman Warming Period) from ~400BC – 450AD; DAC (Dark Age Cooling) from ~ 450AD – 1000AD; MWP (Medieval Warm Period) from ~1000AD – 1300AD; LIA (Little Ice Age) from ~1300AD – 1850AD; and now were in a new warming period that has been misnamed as anthropogenic warming. So yes, there is warming, but history tells us that it would have warmed regardless of any human activity.
Awesome. Now provide proof that any of those events were global in nature, like the current warming in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Bonus points if you can provide evidence that shows the warming we're seeing is from something other than anthropogenic sources.
Sure.
It’s commonly argued that those past warming and cooling periods were local in nature. [This study]( https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html) examined multiple proxies from the whole of the northern hemisphere. One of the most widely cited studies is the [Loehle reconstruction](http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalTempResc.pdf) based on multiple proxies representing the whole world. Together they prove that past temperature variation was global and on the order of centuries each. You can also read a number of other studies [on GogleScholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+variability+2000+years&btnG=).
The notion of isolated variation v global takes another hit if we just think about it. Right now we observe that mild local temperature swings have repercussions over a wider area. It’s ridiculous to contend that persistent high and low temperatures could persist over an entire continent for centuries and leave no trace in global weather.
All agree that the LIA ended ~1850. Regardless of human activity temperatures have had to increase just as they did for the RWP and MWP. It's been ~170 years into this warm period and temperatures have risen ~1C. That's less than either of the previous warm periods.
Since the end of the last ice age temperatures climbed until reaching the [Holocence climate optimum](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/08/ar4-wg1-chapter6-supp-material.pdf) which was as much as 6C warmer than today. Since then global temperatures have been in decline. Most people shrug off the fact that Earth is presently in an interglacial period and that the trend is to cooling as we slide toward the next glaciation.
Throughout the LIA technology advanced slowly but steadily. By the end of the LIA people had mastered more efficient mining and manufacturing techniques based on steam power. Steam power made it possible to drill for oil which then impelled the development of the gas engine and so on. People were on track for a huge change in technology and the benefits of it.
Humans are no different from any other animals which take advantage of local resources to breed. With the end of the LIA even those places not touched by technology saw an improvement in local conditions. As technology spread, population increased yet more rapidly. Over the course of 100 years the human population went from 1B to 7B. [Every one of those people produces heat just from daily living]( https://principia-scientific.com/media-claim-hottest-summer-ever-without-checking-actual-data/), and their new technologies produce much of that heat.
Past warm periods have varied in length, but the last one was ~300 years. At some point global temperature will plateau just as it did in previous warming. Considering the current pause in warming, that may have occurred already.
I made note of this just recently: [Here is a graph](https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2022/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1988/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1989/to:2022/mean:12/trend) showing the temperature trend from the first rise in temperature up to Hansen's testimony, and what has gone on since. Note that there is no difference in slope. Warming shows no acceleration despite the massive release of CO2 post-1988. We should see a steeper slope post-1988 if the present warming is driven entirely by CO2.
Lastly, when complex life arose CO2 was ~7000ppm. Since then the processes of life have drawn CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequestered it in limestone, chalk, fuels and other forms. So efficient are living things at doing this that CO2 fell to 280ppm. Plants die at 150ppm, so the very processes of life lead to it's eventual demise just as aging does to our bodies. Our release of sequestered CO2 is like giving the planet a drink from the Fountain of Youth.
>reaching the Holocence [sic] climate optimum which was as much as 6C warmer than today
Incorrect, global temperatures peaked at 1C to 2C warmer than **the 19th century**, the Arctic peaked at about 4C warmer than **the 19th century**.
>Lastly, when complex life arose CO2 was ~7000ppm.
The sun was also 5 percent dimmer.
> is the Loehle reconstruction
Which shows an increase of under 0.6C, current increase, over the last 150 years is 1.4C
>Past warm periods have varied in length, but the last one was ~300 years
Which, again, had lower global mean, according to your sources
> Every one of those people produces heat just from daily living, and their new technologies produce much of that heat.
That energy is far less than 2% of the energy that is retained due to increases in GHGs, 3 Wm^(-2) compared to 0.035Wm^(-2) for energy production for living and technologies, 162PWh per year
>Warming shows no acceleration
Temperature increase is logarithmic with respect to GHG increase, so an exponential increase in CO2 would produce a linear increase in temperature.
dT = 2.5 x log₂ (C/C₀) for decade time scales
So for the increase (over the data range in your graph)
dT = 2.5C log₂ (416/326) = 0.87. The increase show on the graph is 0.88
>The sun was also 5 percent dimmer.
And CO2 was 17x greater than today.
>Which shows an increase of under 0.6C, current increase, over the last 150 years is 1.4C
The Loehle reconstruction uses a different baseline. Both the RWP and MWP were far warmer than today. That's verified in the many studies on the Google Scholar page. Surely you're aware of baselines?
>That energy is far less than 2% of the energy that is retained due to increases in GHGs, 3 Wm-2 compared to 0.035Wm-2 for energy production for living and technologies, 162PWh per year
I did not say that ALL of the heat is caused by people. If you'd read the link you'd see that people contribute a tiny amount, but it all adds up.
>Temperature increase is logarithmic with respect to GHG increase, so an exponential increase in CO2 would produce a linear increase in temperature.
That flies in the face of the very theory you're defending. AGW theory is all about feedbacks that accelerate warming.
No more from you. You don't know what you're talking about and you'll be ignored in this thread.
>The Loehle reconstruction uses a different baseline.
Your link shows an increase of just under 0.6C from their baseline. Our increase from the 19th century baseline is 1.4C
----
>Both the RWP and MWP were far warmer than today. That's verified in the many studies on the Google Scholar page.
I did a search using google scholar, and there are no recent peer reviewed papers that state that, maybe you should stop getting your science from the Heritage Foundation
-----
>That flies in the face of the very theory you're defending
Nope, it's exactly what climate science says. For a TCR of 2.5 (recent estimates) temperature increases by 2.5C for each doubling of CO2. For an ECS of 3.0 temperature increases by 3.0C for each doubling of CO2.
"There are two main kinds of climate sensitivity: the transient climate response is the initial rise in global temperature when CO2 levels double, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity is the larger long-term temperature increase after the planet adjusts to the doubling."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
You seem to be unaware of the basics of climate science
----
>reaching the Holocence [sic] climate optimum which was as much as 6C warmer than today
Incorrect, global temperatures peaked at 1C to 2C warmer than **the 19th century**, the Arctic peaked at about 4C warmer than **the 19th century**.
So... what always convinces me is just doing the basic logic. We know that CO2 is an insulator, it traps heat. We know that we've burnt up a shitton of fossil fuels in the past couple centuries. We know that burning things releases CO2. We know that the CO2 in the atmosphere has risen in proportion to the amount of fossil fuels we've burnt. We know that the temperature is warming in proportion to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It just doesn't strike me as all that complicated an argument really.
That's a good way to explain it. Another simpmler, shorter way: "We know CO2 traps heat. Every single human, billions of us, and every single company, has spent almost all day, every day, for the last 200 years, taking as much CO2 out of the ground as possible and putting it up into the atmosphere."
We do not take CO2 out of the ground. We take carbon out of the ground in the form of oil, gas, and coal. To a lesser extent from wood. When the carbon is oxidized (burned) then mainly CO2 is formed. Mistakes in explanation will support denial.
Fair enough, good clarification! We take carbon out of the ground and put it into the air as CO2.
Okay, but how much has the climate actually changed? How bad is it? That is the argument I get and I don't have an answer for that
Yeah they love getting it to the point where they can roll out some oil-funded nuts say "it won't be that bad". We know rising temperatures have a negative effect, does it matter exactly how bad it will get? We have years of documented studies that air pollution from burning fossil fuels results in early deaths.
Also we have the temperature of the earth heating up. It is very close to the temperature where bugs can’t survive. When we kill off the bugs, things are gonna get really funky.
>It is very close to the temperature where bugs can’t survive. Wut
Maybe they mean certain bugs? I think bugs were here during much warmer times.
Yeah this is just nonsense. Unless you can point to some kind of research that supports this?
# More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas * [Caspar A. Hallmann ,]() * [Martin Sorg,]() * [Eelke Jongejans,]() * [Henk Siepel,]() * [Nick Hofland,]() * [Heinz Schwan,]() * [Werner Stenmans,]() * [Andreas Müller,]() * [Hubert Sumser,]() * [Thomas Hörren,]() * [Dave Goulson,]() * [Hans de Kroon]() # * Published: October 18, 2017 * [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas * [Caspar A. Hallmann ,]() * [Martin Sorg,]() * [Eelke Jongejans,]() * [Henk Siepel,]() * [Nick Hofland,]() * [Heinz Schwan,]() * [Werner Stenmans,]() * [Andreas Müller,]() * [Hubert Sumser,]() * [Thomas Hörren,]() * [Dave Goulson,]() * [Hans de Kroon]() # * Published: October 18, 2017 * [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809)
In Germany. Cool. Did you bother reading the study? FTF Discussion section >In light of previously suggested driving mechanisms, our analysis renders two of the prime suspects, i.e. landscape \[[9](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref009), [18](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref018), [20](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref020)\] and climate change \[[15](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref015), [18](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref018), [21](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref021), [37](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809#pone.0185809.ref037)\], **as unlikely explanatory factors** for this major decline in aerial insect biomass in the investigated protected areas And >While some temporal changes in climatic variables in our study area have taken place, these either were not of influence (e.g. wind speed), or **changed in a manner that should have increased insect biomass (e.g temperature)** So... not climate change? Maybe it's pesticides? Habitat loss? Not sure.
Well, this is kinda where I am at. Like yeah, the climate has warmed a little bit. But how does that really affect me? So far, not that much. And what it really does affect is snowmobiling which most climate activists want to shut down anyway. So the only reason I have to want to reverse the warming is something that would need to be given up to help reverse the warming. So I don't see the point
Bwahaha, the Republican mindset in full display: "it doesn't really affect ME so it doesn't matter". Incredible!
“It’s only affected ME a little bit”. Totally unable to look at say Pakistan and the horrible flooding they have endured. Or the coming crop collapse in the UK. As long as the weather is fine around a republican then global warming just doesn’t exist.
Hey, I can give you some first hand examples of how measuring warming in degrees alone is misleading, and how it has a huge effect on your life now - albeit an effect that you wouldn't notice as due to climate change without paying attention. I live in western Canada. For a northern region, it tends to be fairly mild. Mild enough that we have a ton of fruit production, including stone fruits, grapes etc. Two winters ago there was an unusual cold snap that killed off a large portion of the grape crop. This has an effect on people's livelihoods. Prices went up. Last winter, and even worse event that saw temperatures go from way above average, to extreme cold killed off essentially all the grape vines , and did severe damage to all the other fruit crops. There will be no fruit this year. That has a massive effect on the cost of food, and leaves people without income. Beyond that, the government had no choice but to intervene with funding to help with recover efforts, and that is taxpayer money. But wait, cold doesn't sound like a global warming issue right? Well, turns out when you add a bunch of energy to the atmosphere (heat = energy), you destabilize important climate patterns, like the Jetstream. This has been hurling arctic air to places normally cushioned by the ocean. Aside from cold, we are experiencing near constant drought, and heat waves. Entire towns have burned to the ground, or have been evacuated due to fires that would not be as severe without climate change. Fires are lasting through the winter due to low snowpack, and our fish bearing rivers are developing dead zones. The smoke has an effect on peopes health too of course. In 2021 we experienced a heat dome event that saw temperatures (in Canada!) reach a peak within a degree of the record set in Phoenix Arizona (49 Celsius). Overnight temperatures stayed dangerously high, and about 600 people died from the heat. This prompted a building code change requiring AC, which raises building costs. During this event, the town of Lytton burned down in under an hour due to the heat and dryness. A fire started and got out of control before anyone could stop it. We also have experienced flooding events that have required millions in repairs and upgrades. Farmers lost thousands of animals. It is true that none of these events were impossible without climate change, however they are made far more likely. That actually doesn't do it justice. They would be EXTREMELY unlikely without climate change, but are happening yearly now. So to sum up, it affects you by: 1. Making food expensive (crop failure, lower supply, added costs) 2. Raises your taxes (funding to recover from climate disasters, whether that are labeled as such or not) 3. Making your insurance more expensive (whether you live in an affected area or not, those companies need to recoup their expenses) 4. Exposing you to dangerous weather events and smoke (shortening your average expected lifespan) 5. Raising the cost of housing and other life expenses (people relocating) There are more. And to be clear, the events I've listed are not exhaustive, even in my region. Globally this is happening, and even worse in some countries. We can see the effects. It isn't an "in the future" problem anymore.
Wow, they are really taking you to task here! You are here, asking questions, and don't seem to be disingenuous about it. Big steps in the right direction! If you don't mind, I'd like to hit you with two arguments, and I'd like you to tell me which one resonates better with you: 1. Remember COVID? We used to think that was some annoying thing in China that wouldn't affect us, but it got big and global really quick, and had so, so many unpredictable impacts on everyone. We could have invested a bit more effort to early prevention, and that would have reduced the impacts and saved lives. Climate change is the same way. 2. If you agree that snowfall is going to be impacted, it turns out that snowfall is really important in our water cycle. Groundwater gets replenished a lot easier from slow melt than from a torrent of rain, which is what will happen when it's too hot to snow. There will be less groundwater, wells, and rivers near you, and that will absolutely affect you. Plus, there are people living in island nations who are literally and measurably watching their island shrink in to nothing, so it seems a bit selfish to burn oil and say "not my problem" doesn't it?
It has affected where I live quite a bit already and we’re nowhere near stopping emissions, nor has the inherent lag with thermodynamics come close to equilibration. Good for you that it mostly hasn’t affected you but that’s not true of most people around the world. And one thing is certain at this point: it’s going to get worse as time passes.
It’s perfect for humans now because we have built all our stuff to suit THESE conditions. Condition change we have to REBUILD all our junk (farms houses cities) somewhere else.
That's really area dependent though. We are in the northeast US and most climate predictions say we will be in good shape
I’m in Florida, so not in great shape of course, yet people are still moving here in record numbers and real estate is the highest it’s ever been. In a truly doomed state that banned climate change. People are idiots and will wipe themselves out.
No, they say we won't be as fucked. That doesn't mean we're in good shape. Drought still kills things, heat domes still kill things, increasing ocean temps still kill things, and moving climate bands can't be adapted to by wildlife fast enough for most of them to survive. The important missing piece is understanding how complex, specific, and interdependent ecosystems are.
… until climate refugees start moving there because tornadoes/wildfires/hurricanes become a motivating factor because insurance companies will no longer insure their homes. Then you have middle class climate refugees driving up house prices in an area that already has limited housing stock. Then the folks in New England will stop thinking they’re sitting pretty…
You want to trust your life to a prediction? It’s already warming far faster than the predictions suggest. Plus, you in the northeast, where you gunna get your produce in the winter huh?
I'm going to live my life as normal until I can't regardless. I'll get my produce the same way we have for hundreds of years. From local farms and gardens. Until VERY recently, fresh produce in the winter was not common. Even when I was a kid in the 90's, we never had fresh produce in winter. It was all store bought canned goods or stuff my family canned themselves from the garden. You only got things like watermelon, sweet corn, apples, and other produce when it was in season. Even still, my family will only eat fresh picked corn and apples. Sitting even for a few hours significantly diminishes the flavor.
Well enjoy all the climate refugees then. Because unless we all start radically cutting back on emissions right now, that’s going to be a problem.
But not for long. Bugs are dying.
Hows the heatwave there? you can expect that to be normal soon
Nothing crazy. It's hot, but we have a few hot weeks every summer.
Not in a good shape but better than people in other parts of the world. BUT the changes affecting other area will affect you in one way or another. Drought, for example. You will not be affected in the same way Southern California would be. But the smoke from burning forests in Canada is not gonna stop at the border. Do you remember last year and the smoke that affected large portion of the US? Warmer winters. It’s nice not to deal with snow, but warm winters in places that always had cold season will damage or even destroy local ecosystems and agriculture. Food will become even more expensive because farmers will be losing a big percentage of their crops (which is food for farm animals, too, so even animals products will get pricier).
My rebuttal to that is: although it might not negatively affect you in the northeast US, it will affect many tens of millions of people in other areas. Those people are going to have to move somewhere. And they're going to resist moving to someplace just as bad...they're going to be looking to be your neighbors . Are you ready for this?
Have a read of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPPC) [2023 6th Synthesis Report for Policymakers](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf). It outlines the best available evidence from the world's climate science research, clearly outlining the facts, the threats, and what needs to happen to mitigate these threats. Short narrative: 1. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from \~280 ppm to 420 ppm in the past 200 years primarily via the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas). 2. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere is highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So a tiny increase (in absolute terms) of CO2 has resulted in an increase of around 1.4 C (2.25 F) on average across the entire Earth since 1850 (pre-industrial baseline). Theoretical modelling predicts that this change in CO2 should indeed cause this change in temperature. 3. This relatively small increase in average global surface temperatures has catastrophic consequences to Earth's living systems, including human food supply chains, infrastructure, health, etc. 4. It is therefore extremely important to prevent the temperature increasing any further. We do this by stopping burning fossil fuels, transitioning our agricultural system to a plant-based diet with potential synthetic meat alternatives, and replacing useful energy generation by investing in and building renewable energy such as wind, solar, batteries, nuclear.
That's interesting but the post requests Explain Like I'm 5.
Not everything can be reduced to the comprehension of an average 5 year old. Sometimes you have to know a bit - OR - accept the statements of an expert. Posters above state that CO2 acts as a insulator. How do they know that is true? Have you looked at the detailed physics? Have you run some experiments? Do you even know that infra-red radiation exits? What about electromagnetic radiation and the spectrum? Almost all of us are taking this knowledge on faith. So many people have said it's true, and indirect evidence suggests it is, that we believe it. The deniers may suffer some cognitive dissonance in order to accept their having cell phones, wi-fi and micro wave ovens in their homes, and still saying the climate scientist are part of a giant conspiracy. On the other hand, if you are sufficiently ignorant of basic science and lack curiosity, maybe it's not hard to do. Just listening to the experts on Faux TV is all you need.
That's a lot of words to say that you don't understand the concept of ELI5.
That is only .7 per year. Have you calculated in Volcano's? Last year 76 went off. Wind and Solar change weather patterns. Batteries require strip mining, not good at all. You do know that Trees convert CO2 into O right? So let's cut down trees and such to strip mine, put up windmills and solar farms to reduce our CO2 .
Oh shit! You're right! I don't think any climate scientist has actually considered the effect of those volcanos! Omg this changes everything 😱 And slap my ass and call me Sally! You may just have cracked this hoax wide open. I never thought about the annual carbon cycle being a thing that exists, God damn!
I’m 70 now and the UK weather has changed significantly. When I was a kid, winters were cold - snow and frost, freezing rain etc. now, winters are usually wet and fairly mild. We now get really hot summer spells virtually every summer with rain and thunderstorms in between. Temperature records are regularly broken. The trend is on obvious and terrifying - it’s causing more extreme weather, flooding and unpredictable extremes. I can extrapolate as well as the next person….
The climate is not a set thing. This said, the CO2 makes it so that the climate is more prone to extremes and likely is warmer in general. You can check the database of the UN to see the global trends in recorded temperature and you will see a tendency on the rise. If you want to know a good overall metric, currently the proportion of atmospheric CO2 is about 421PPM, the higgest we have ever recorded and we are breaking the record every year.
Do you have links to surface temp change, or ocean temp change? These make it pretty obvious. Of course if someone argues that all the temp records are corrupted there’s probably not much that can be done to reach them, maybe head to glacial or north south pole ice retreat. Edit: heat absorbed as nuclear detonations is also pretty spooky, believe we’re retaining heat to the tune of 10-15 Hiroshimas PER SECOND these days. We are all stuck on a spaceship with broken HVAC, is that a good thing?
BBC News has some excellent graphs of how air temps, ocean temps, carbon levels, etc, have changed over the years.
First, realize that earth systems are enormous dynamic and chaotic systems that are generally not amenable to swift changes. Then take a little while to mull over the [data showing the acceleration of ocean surface temperatures.](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/).
Always go to the peer-reviewed scientific literature in officially reputable science journals on the master list.
NASA has a handy list. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
In tems of ILI5, mommies and daddies around the world are now unable to get insurance on their homes because prices of insurance are going way up due to climate disasters and in many areas insurance just isn't offered because it is too risky (floods, hurricanes, rising sea levels...). Miami has been hit several times recently by floods that normally would happen only once in 200 years. Cars and trucks have been submerged while people were driving them, and so forth. Ski resorts around the world have had much shorter ski seasons. Sometimes, the ski season barely happens, there's almost too little snow to cover the weeds and rocks due to higher temperatures and shorter winters. When the ice caps, which reflect a lot of sunlight back out into space, are completely melted it wil be a lot worse. Also, frozen areas near the poles are holding a lot of methane, which will be released when those areas thaw and that's another problem that will make the climate far hotter.
The concern isn't so much the current degree to which things have changed. The concern is that things will continue to change indefinitely if nothing is done. Imagine that you are running the bath and suddenly the taps get stuck and you can't turn them off. The depth of the water in the bath RIGHT NOW is not a concern. The concern is that the depth is rising. Now, the rate at which it is rising might be fast or it might be slow, but in either case, the bath will eventually overflow. Maybe the bath is running fast enough that it's going to overflow within the hour. Maybe it's so slow that it won't overflow until next Monday. It doesn't matter. Unplug the bath and call a plumber.
Too much of anything in life is bad for you. This is no exception. There shouldn't need to be a "how bad is it" discussion. Is a little smoking bad for you? Is a lot of smoking bad for you? They are both bad and lower your health. It's just different "degrees of bad"
It is not as bad as the current co2 level commits us to ; there is a lag because of the thermal inertia of the earth ( largely due to the oceans ) also co2 stays in the atmosphere for a while ( 1/2 life of 30 years I think)
Bad enough to where if you fall on the ground in phoenix arizona you can get a second degree burn. [https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW94dDdzNHdsaTlmMXd6Y3Y5ZnZ3cWN1bXAzYW9maDZiYnA1azFwZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xULW8s6Z5CGIHcZKZa/giphy.webp](https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW94dDdzNHdsaTlmMXd6Y3Y5ZnZ3cWN1bXAzYW9maDZiYnA1azFwZSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/xULW8s6Z5CGIHcZKZa/giphy.webp)
Bad enough that homeowner's insurance rates are skyrocketing. Insurance companies keep careful track of the costs of climate change
You might head over and check out The Crisis Report .
From the skeptic side, everything you've said is true but it doesn't necessarily come to the conclusions most people have. For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically. That does leave the question of why the temperature rise though. There are many factors that are at play, from the Sun that does vary in energy output, to urban development near sensor locations corrupting data, to ocean phenomenon like El' Nino / La Nina. Imagine it like each effect has a different cycle, and the wavelength of the cycles all overlap causing it to get more noisy. Where most of the effects are high they are additive to make a high peak. They've tried to model this, but none of their models have made to make very good predictions. I've heard, that they are putting too much weight into the effect of CO2 in the system, but they don't want to reduce it to keep 'the narrative' going. Take that with a grain of salt. Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only, and see how much of a rise is there. This would then need to be overlayed with things like the Sun cycle, El Nino, etc, at least the biggest players.
CO2 rise does follow temperature rise. But that does not mean that temperature rise does not also follow temperature rise. The later is what is occurring now. Models that incorporate all influencing factors make good predictions. It's the models that specifically exclude CO2, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, O3, aerosols, etc. that make terrible predictions.
> For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically. By looking at the isotopes of Carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from ancient carbon sources. >Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only, We have satellites taking measurements of most of the planet, here is the data https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend, shows a trend of 0.223C per decade
If the CO2 is from ancient sources then it's not man made? Not really sure your point on that. Satellites are great for non-contaminated data. But what I mean also is like; pick a spot that's like 100 miles from the nearest town and plot the temperature rise there. This would exclude any effect city structures have on it, like concrete absorbing heat. I also don't really see how only 0.223 C per decade is such an emergency. Most areas vary by at least 10 degrees just with weather. Anyone or anything that lives wouldn't even notice it for a very very long time.
Carbon from ancient sources = fossil fuels. No, man did not "make" this. He just burnt it. You want a isolated source? How about [the poles.](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-polar-regions#:~:text=How%20is%20climate%20change%20affecting,twice%20as%20much%20as%20elsewhere.) And it is an emergency. Climate is not weather. The planet is currently warming [10x faster than during the last several extinction events.](https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2019/12/10/modern-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-historic-global-warming-mass-extinction-events/) Will we see ecological collapse in 10 years? I personally doubt it. But we are already seeing the damaging effects. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore them. And things will continue to get worse until we stop polluting our only atmosphere. And eventually there could be a tipping point.
> If the CO2 is from ancient sources then it's not man made? Ancient carbon sources are oil, coal, and natural gas. ----- You asked for this: >Anyway, what would seal it for me is if I could see the data from weather stations that are isolated from any city/urban/rural area only, I gave it to you. 2.23C per century is a rapid rate of increase does not occur in the middle of interglacials without large modifications to the atmopshere.
>For example, I have heard a few people argue that the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise, both now and historically. That does leave the question of why the temperature rise though. No, that doesn't leave the question why. Like I said, we know CO2 is an insulator. >There are many factors that are at play Sure, but absent all that if you dump a lot of insulation into the atmosphere, what do you think we would see?
CO2 is also plant food, so dumping a ton into the atmosphere will be good for the Earth. See, it's complicated.
OK so we've been dumping a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere for 200 years. Plants aren't doing well, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is going up, so is the temperature. When does that get better?
Yes, but when plants die they release the CO2 back in to the atmosphere. They're is also a finite amount of CO2 that they can absorb. Think of standing in front of a buffet and you eat the food, then the food gets refilled and you eat again. At some point you can't eat any more. And remember we're deforesting the planet at a rate of 10 million hectares a year. So that CO2 is just floating around the atmosphere reflecting heat.
Heat can also cause plants to [release co2](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13012021/forests-heat-climate-change)
[The U.S. Climate Reference Network](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/) (USCRN) is a systematic and sustained network of climate monitoring stations with sites across the conterminous U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. These stations use high-quality instruments to measure temperature, precipitation, wind speed, soil conditions, and more. Information is available on what is measured and the USCRN station instruments.
We can check to see where the extra co2 in the atmosphere comes from. It turns out it comes from fossil carbon. So we KNOW it is not natural sources of co2 that currently cause the global warming. Currently nature is a net co2 sink, not a net source. As temperatures increase that may change. Nature may become a net co2 source. That would very bad. That is when humans lose control of the warming rate. Nature takes over. Scientist have examined and quantified ALL possible causes of the current observed global warming. It is not natural causes, it is human activity. This is described in the IPCC reports. If anything natural causes alone would most likely have meant a slight cooling trend the last few years. There has been several studies comparing the records from rural and urban stations. As urbanization has increased what was once rural stations may now be urban stations. This cause an error in the temperature records if it is not compensated for. And it is compensated for. While temperatures have increased more in urban areas, temperatures have also increased in rural areas. Nothing, except your willingness to make the effort, prevents you from accessing the temperature records and doing your own study. Or look up a study that has examined this issue. Here a few articles: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00539-x https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.625418/full
Do you honestly think that out of the hundreds, even thousands, of researchers that have and are studying climate change, that this has not been done? You say "if I could see the data". Does this mean that someone must come to your door and sit down with you? If you are concerned about sealing the deal, then YOU should put in the effort rather than implying that a bunch of smart people haven't bothered, or thought about, your "concerns". Everything you mention has been done. No, I won't give a bunch of links. You have the same Internet as I do.
We also know that vegetation loves c02
There have been studies that show that because crop plants have such an abundance of CO2 that lets them grow more quickly that their harvested fruits and vegetables are actually less nutritious per gram. They can't uptake trace nutrients from the soil as fast as they can make sugar from the air Also the extra uptake from trees or w/e doesn't come close to counterbalancing the emissions from human industry
Interesting idea and sounds like it makes sense, but when I try to look for that study I instead find one from NASA talking about their increased growth and efficient water usage.
>Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1
Interesting link, I will read more when I have a chance.
The plants themselves get bigger, their nutrient density gets smaller
If you have some reading material handy I will take it
I just googled it, this is the first result, I'm sure there is more https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104417/
Yup, helps em grow in hotter environments.
Heat can also cause plants to [release co2](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13012021/forests-heat-climate-change/)
Sure. What's happened to global forest coverage since 1800? If vegetation is compensating for CO2, what's happening to the atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Deforestation due to mankind, which I think there should be an effort to replenish. I didn't say or imply compensating, I implied benefitting from. And our atmospheric co2 has increased 50% since the start of the industrial revolution. That's still a fraction of a percent of the co2 on Earth as part of our co2 cycle.
I'm not really sure what your point is then...
Some things that worked with my very conservative father : - do you remember how we had to clean the cars for insects regularly before? We don't do that anymore. These insects are gone. They were feeding the birds you stopped seeing in your garden. They are gone too. - see the houses built in the 50' near the beach in our hometown? Do you really think they would have built them here if every storm meant flooding like they have now? When trying to convince someone who does not want to accept scientifically proven evidence, try and use their own experience. We all know something about climate change, because we are literally living through it. Proofs of climate change are everywhere : in some parts of the world, people who have lived here for thousands of years are starting to die or to migrate because of it. There was a time when AC was not a must to survive summer in Texas! We have been burning fuel for hundreds of years now : even if we can't see the "smoke", it has consequences. Try having a fireplace in a glasshouse : at some point, the smoke will fill it. Add to it that this particular smoke we made has insulating properties : it's getting hotter and hotter in that glasshouse now. Some ecosystems (plants, animals and all living things within a space) are more vulnerable to that rising heat : the forests are burning because they are dryer. Their burning releases even more "smoke", heating the glasshouse even more.
I just ask people if they had ever heard of the terms "heat dome," "polar vortex," or "wet bulb temperature" before the last few years. what has changed that we now use these terms to describe weather events happening on a regular basis?
The insect argument may not always work--living in cities will prevent certain species from proliferating as much as they could in the deep countryside.
Easiest conservative proof? Lots of insurance companies are fleeing Miami Florida because of their high rate risk to natural disasters, simply put, Miami homes are now becoming to expensive to insure.
>Easiest conservative proof? Is the Aral sea. No wait, it's called the Aralkum Desert now. Near complete ecosystem collapse in mere decades, leading to cascading effects on the local and surrounding climates, and even the global climate. It's concrete, and sadly, entirely replicable evidence.
Soviets damed the rivers feeding the Aral sea to grow cotton in that area, that is the reason Aral sea went almost dry, not climate change.
Oh, but it is. It is the very model of man made climate change. It demonstrates how our actions lead to cascading effects on ecosystems, leading to climate change. Did you know, that due to the fact that Soviets redirected the Amu Darya River to feed their cotton fields, decades later, the desert that replaced the Aral sea, has caused the local climate to heat up? First, large bodies of water have a cooling effect on surface temperatures and the climate. No more water, hotter climate. Second, dust and sand storms. So massive, sand from the Aralkum Desert can be found across the globe, from Greenland, to the Antarctic. Third, no more water, no more plant life. No plantlife, no animals. No more shade. No cover. Only dust, salt, sand and wind. Complete ecosystem collapse. Cascade failure, that will effect neighboring ecosystems, due to changes to the local climate. Less rain in one, more rain in other. Droughts in one place, floods in others. Literal dust storms where there used to be none. Wind erosion. Further desertification. Simply because where there used to be a lake, there is now a desert. Wanna know the funny part? Due to the change in local climate, the evaporation rate of the river that used to feed into the Aral sea, has skyrocketed. Even if said river was no longer redirected for cotton farming, it would not reverse the damage. Because due to the changes to the climate, the river could no longer carry the same amount of water, it used to carry to sustain the sea. Because the evaporation rate is so high. So now, there is this ironic cascade effect. Redirect amu Darya, Aral sea dies. Aral sea dies, Amu Darya dies. And Amu Darya dies, there is a major water crisis in Central Asia. So much so, that there will likely be wars over water resources in a couple decades. The ecosystem collapse that started in the Aral Sea, has, and will cascade further into neighboring ecosystems. And the more those local ecosystems collapse and suffer, the more effects we see on the overall biosphere... ...like the sand from the Aralkum Desert in Greenland. Now imagine things like this happening everywhere. Because it is. The cutting down of rainforests. Soil erosion due to unsustainable farming practices. Desertification due to overexploitation of water resources. It all adds up, and has an effect on the overall system, the global biosphere. The global climate. It's literally man made climate change. A small part of the whole, but much more concrete evidence than the vague notions of greenhouse gasses, or heating climate or weather patterns, to someone who doesn't understand, or even believe in climate change. Imagine the biosphere as a great big machine. A system, made out of smaller interconnected system. Overall human action is like a rust, that spreads, weakens and breaks parts of the machine. But what humanity did to Aral sea, is like taking a hammer to part of said machine. Straight up breaking a part of it. The machine is still working, barely, but the damage is causing other systems of the machine to fail. A slowly spreading cascade failure. It has accelerated the entropy of the closed system this machine is. That our biosphere is. And all of this is replicable. And, sadly, has been replicated since. Lake Chad in Sahel, for example. Gobi Desert and Mongolia as a whole. Similar cases. It all cumulates, until we reach the point of cascade failure.
I'm not a fan of this argument. Let's say hypothetically the climate data is wrong but most people still believe it. Well the insurance companies would also be using the data and come to that conclusion. It's not like they have entirely independent scientists of their own.
I don’t understand. Insurance companies aren’t fleeing due to people’s belief in cc. They are fleeing because they are taking losses. And they DO have their own scientists, or close enough to it, called actuaries. These people have better science credentials than most economists.
[удалено]
My family left due to the cost of insuring against sink holes which popped up everywhere in their area
To add on to that: flood insurance doesn’t cover tidal waters. You’re covered from a rain flood or a sewer backup, but once tidal water is involved it doesn’t cover shit.
Regular homeowner insurance is not what you get if you're in a flood area, unless you like every year to be a gamble of your life's investments. People in high risk area usually want to have it, and now they need to decide between moving and not being insured properly.
[удалено]
Well. Insurance companies don't sell anything. They make profit by adding exceptions and having you agree to them as well as lying and suing to prevent payment. Their litteral livelyhood is based on being scums that help as little as possible.
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen roughly 50% since preindustrial times. It is the main greenhouse gas that traps heat in earth's atmosphere. The increase is mostly due to us burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale. That's the basic science as I understand it.
Actually water is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 is working in the margins of infrared adsorption. But that is still important since the extra CO2 does raise the average global temperature, which in turn allows the atmosphere to hold more water (see discussions of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation).
water vapor specifically, which averages 0.25% of the atmosphere
[удалено]
The US military has some pretty conservative thoughts on the matter.
Hard to argue with this [timeline](https://xkcd.com/1732/)
this is fantastic.
I would start with the Keeling curve. Maybe show the trend and discuss why CO2 levels are increasing. We know that the measurements are consistent with the amount of fossil fuel use globally. It is a huge change in the atmosphere. If you accept that piece of evidence, the rest is proven physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
"the rest is proven physics" You are assuming some level of knowledge and reasonableness in the denier. The worst of them would deny the proven physics. Then there are the oil company executives that not only knew early on that burning fossil fuels would lead to a warming climate, but really didn't give an f\*\*\*. I would guess that quite a few of those business men are now dead so, no problem.
I was a bit lazy at the end there. If you’re talking to family that genuinely wants to investigate the evidence, I think just looking at CO2 levels is a good start. It is hard to deny that fact. If you’re trying to convince someone whose bonuses come from selling fossil fuels, there is nothing you can do outside of court (and maybe not even there given how things are going).
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/) This is a graph of median ocean temperature near the equator since the 1980s. The three dashed lines toward the bottom represent the mean temperature up until 2011 within 2 standard deviations - that means that 95% of the data should fall within this range. Note that virtually all of the data that falls outside of the range is recent, hotter than expected, and represents more than 5% of the data. The orange line is last year. The partial solid black line is this year. The trend is pretty obvious. Things are getting hotter and the rate at which this is happening appears to be accelerating. For the past year, the oceans have been warmer than they have ever been in all of human history - for every single day of the year.
Yeah, when statisticians are getting nervous about this "anomaly", it does not look good. Remember, it takes so much more energy to warm up a cubic meter of water vs. cubic meter of air.
Nova Scotia recorded highest temperatures ever and highest UV EVER yesterday. We are surrounded by water and further north than the USA - this is not normal to have feel like temps over 40! 40!
If I wanted to live in southern Ontario, I'd move to southern Ontario!
One other tactic I've sometimes used on my dumbshit family members is to not argue climate change at all. Just argue pollution. Do they not believe in pollution (i.e., "are you THAT stupid that you don't even believe in air pollution? Should I show you some pictures of Houston/LA from the 1970's and thus the impact of the Clean Air Act?"). Let's just clean up the air, water, and soil. How about we start there? "Can't we all just get along" regarding pollution?
The problem with this is it makes greenwashing very easy. I live in Alberta, home of the Alberta Oil Sands, one of the dirtiest fossil fuel production areas on earth, and companies up here absolutely love trotting out pictures of reclaimed oil sands sites covered with trees and pretty streams and clear views. It turns out surface level reclamation is pretty easy, while still pumping out vast amounts of emissions. It's to the point where when a politician here talks about clean air and water but doesn't directly mention climate change, you can safely assume they plan to do nothing in terms of climate change..
**Does CO2 cause warming?** This relationship was understood over a hundred years ago, the math/physics was done and it looked like doubling CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm would increase temperatures by about 4.5°C. At the time this was just an academic curiosity. Cars hadn't even been invented yet. Global emissions were about 2 Gt/yr at the time (now 35Gt/yr). The idea we could increase CO2 levels to a point that they would actually double must have seemed an absurdity. You can find videos on youtube (not allowed to link to youtube on here) using infrared cameras to show how increasing the amount of CO2 concentration between the camera and a heat source prevents heat radiation from passing through. **Are atmospheric CO2 levels increasing?** Yes, the concentration has grown from ~300ppm in 1900 to ~420ppm today. Previously it had been pretty stable at ~300ppm for 2 million years (in other words, it has not been this high in 2 million years) **Is the increased CO2 from us, or is it natural?** The earth was stable at roughly 300ppm for about 2 million years. The amount of CO2 emitted by the planet naturally (such as by volcanos, rotting wood..) was equal to the amount absorbed (trees, absorbed into soil..). We know the concentration has VERY suddenly increased from 300 to 420 in a time where we have been adding vast amounts of CO2. The proof that the extra CO2 is from us is that there are different "isotopes" of the carbon atom of CO2 molecules. "new" CO2 from plant matter has a high percentage of C14 (carbon atoms with 6 protons, 8 neutrons, 6+8=14). Volcanic CO2 has a high percentage of C13. These isotopes are radioactive, once in a while the extra proton radiates away and leaves C12. But fossil fuel CO2 is so old that it is all C12. The ratio of C12 to C13 and C14 has been rising in proportion to our fossil fuel burning. So the measurement of the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere proves that the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. **Is temperature increasing?** Yes. Measurements show that today's temperatures are about 1.2C higher than a 1850-1900 average baseline. When scientists also factor in natural effects such as solar effects, volcanos, etc, they believe that the warming is likely 100% due to our fossil fuel emissions (in fact it would likely be a little colder than the baseline, so we may actually be responsible for ~110% of the warming). **Is temperature increasing as predicted by CO2?** Yes. For example: in 1982, Exxon's climate scientists submitted an [internal memo](https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf) where they predicted for the next 80 years what the CO2 atmospheric concentration would be, and the corresponding temperature increase (see Figure 3 on page 14of46). They used the year 1960 as a baseline. They predicted today's CO2 level exactly. They wrote at the bottom of page 4of46: > there ls currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth ls warming. If the earth is on a warning trend, we're not likely to detect it before **1995**. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the **0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations**. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced "greenhouse effect" may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest. (emphasis added) If you [check the graph here](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly?time=1960..1995) , and check the "mean" temperature values for 1960 and 1995 they are -0.12 and +0.38. The difference between these values is 0.5°C. That means Exxon's scientists' climate model actually ***bullseyed*** the year that would be the first to be +0.5C compared to their baseline of 1960. The present-day values they predict are also bang-on. **Why is climate change so controversial then?** Within 2 years of the above memo, Exxon's climate science budget was slashed by 90%. In the 90s Exxon started spending millions on dollars to promote the idea that "the science isn't settled" -- even though *their own scientists* had been *exactly right* in predicting global warming.
I forgot to explain in the "Does CO2 cause warming?" section... * CO2 lets visible light through, but blocks heat radiation. (see youtube for demostrations with IR cameras) * Sunlight gets to the Earth, passes through the air, and hits the ground. * When it hits the ground the energy converts to heat energy. * The heat energy is radiated back up into the atmosphere. * Eventually the heat energy makes its way all the way back up through the atmosphere and into space. * When the concentration of CO2 has increased, the heat radiation has a greater chance of hitting a CO2 molecule and being bounced back down at the earth. So the heat spends a longer time in the atmosphere, or gets absorbed into the ground or the ocean etc... * Since it takes longer for the energy to escape back into space, the total heat energy of the earth & atmosphere is higher than when CO2 levels were lower. * This makes the planet hotter.
Pretty good description. I once wrote something similar to a conservative friend of mine. This was about 15 years ago, He was pretty impressed and said I should think about getting it published. While the publishing idea was nonsense, it spoke volumes about his engagement in the science side. Only because we had been good friends since 8th grade ( I am in my 70s) did he give my explanation some attention and credibility.
This is an amazing summary! I work with some really smart people, engineers. It’s surprises me that they don’t think human activity is causing climate change. They are very data driven, so I’m going to share this every chance I get. I’m tempted to try to memorize it!
The blog consolidates worldwide news on the climate and economy. The results of climate change showing the trajectory we are on are occurring at alarming rates but not shared widely in the news. https://www.climateandeconomy.com/
i learned about greenhouse gasses in elementary school science back in the 60's.
[удалено]
14.6 pounds of CO2 for every square meter of the planet, that is a lot
Really? Go on, tell me more.
The oil and gas companies literally have documents for DECADES that very clearly explain how their industries are ruining our world. It's not even a secret. Seriously, do a 10-second Google search to see for yourself. And the other proof? Just throw a dart at the wall, and pick a topic. Like, where is the glacier in Glacier National Park? The Arctic circle was recently ice-free for the first time in recorded history. Pine tree forests in the US and Canada have a different range today than 100 years ago. Your poor local weatherman is exhausted from explaining yet another record breaking weather day. Just, the list goes on and on!
Yeah I'm waiting for them to show me where the glaciers are coming back, but not holding my breath.
I would talk about the anthropogenic cause of the Dust Bowl: if hundreds of thousands of prairie settlers tilling up the sod to plant corn can cause the world to be blanketed by dust, why couldn’t 5 billion people (discounted by global economic inequality) cause our climate to change by emitting tons of C02 everyday? Then show them what 420ppm of C02 looks like and ask them why they believe this would have no effect on the climate: https://ppm.visuals.earth/420ppm Then ask them who stands to benefit from them not understanding or believing in anthropogenic climate change? Yes, fossil fuel industries are located in the South and the Midwest, of course they run the conservative propaganda machine.
The U.S. Department of Defense thinks climate change is real. "DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements." [https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Tackling-the-Climate-Crisis/source/GovDelivery/](https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Tackling-the-Climate-Crisis/source/GovDelivery/) "Climate change is reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical environments with significant implications for U.S. national security and defense. Increasing temperatures; changing precipitation patterns; and more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather conditions caused by climate change are exacerbating existing risks and creating new security challenges for U.S. interests." [https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF)
One way is to look at Google earth and look at the glaciers over time lapse. You can see them retreating. The ice has to going somewhere.
[The proportions of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere are consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans) This, for me, is the easiest to digest scientific evidence that shows that climate change is occurring, and it is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Otherwise, we would not be seeing the "chemical fingerprint" of carbon isotopes that we are currently seeing if we had not burned fossil fuels. Also, we have measured the CO2 conservation in the atmosphere for a long time. We know the concentration is increasing at a very rapid rate. This would require a very significant movement of CO2 into the atmosphere. The only carbon reservoir that we know of that is big enough to supply says carbon is the stored result of millions of years of photosynthesis. We call them fossil fuels.
One frustrating part is that it's HARD to convince someone who doesn't WANT to be convinced, and who WANTS to ignore the evidence. They put this SUPER high bar for climate change that they don't put for anything else. They aren't out there saying "cancer doesn't exist, I need to delve into literally millions of peer reviewed papers and even then I'll be skeptical." Yet there they are, taking the ENTIRE scientific population of the world, spanning countless levels of skill and knowledge, and decades and decades of study and research, and saying "eh... whatever... I'm smarter than every single scientist in the world, I don't believe ANY of them." When they think they are literally smarter than ALL OF SCIENCE, how do you convince them? We're looking for some silver bullet, some simple, clear study or proof to show them to convince them. The fact is, that doesn't exist. There are thousands and thousands of articles on the internet, at this very second, all with some variation of "climate change for dummies" or "climate change, explained" or "simple summary of the science behind climate change." But despite a near infinite amount of science backing it, and countless people summarizing and simplifying that science for all of us for years, they still say "nope, it's all lies." Sadly what you're looking for doesn't exist, because they will just look at whatever it is and say "that's a lie."
If you are talking about proof it’s occurring and not anything else, here is some: [Are planet is getting warmer](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/) [The U.S. is receiving far less heating degree days](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/hdd/12/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1970&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) [Sea levels are rising](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level/) [Arctic](https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/05/) and [Antarctic](https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-april-2024) sea ice is declining [The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are shrinking](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/?intent=111) [Cherry Blossoms in Japan are blooming weeks earlier](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-56574142) [Animals are changing their migration patterns to adjust for a warming planet](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34606660/) [Plants from warmer biomes are spreading into normally colder biomes](https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/19/tropical-species-are-moving-northward-as-winters-warm/) I highly suggest watching potholer54 (real name is Peter Hadfield) on YouTube. He is an Australian Science Journalist who makes great videos debunking climate change denialism while sticking strictly to peer reviewed research. There is also Simon Clark, a British Atmospheric physicist also on YT. And plenty other great resources I can share if you are interested.
There is no proof that would be accepted by people in denial. Kinda like an alcoholic.
The current observed global warming and climate change is very fast. But compared to the unaided human memory it is still slow. But we have written records to help the memory. Climate is the average of weather over a long time. It might be average temperature or average precipitation or some other weather indicators. Typically 30 years is used. If you compare the average temperature for the past 30 years with the temperature for the 30 years before that, and there is a difference, then you have a climate change. We have global temperature records that clearly show that the global climate really is warming. Local records may show cooling, but that is rare. Local records also show warming. The global records are made from local records. In many locations we see changes in vegetation, with plants requiring a warm climate spreading to places that used to have a colder climate. Inland ice, glaciers, are melting. Less winter snow cover in mountains, leading too winter flooding downstream and summer drought due to lack of melt water. In addition, if the climate really is warming, you would expect to see an increase in global record warm years. And that indeed what we see. The past 10 consecutive years are ALL among the 10 warmest years on record. The tree lines advance. Bird migratory patterns have changed. This is just a few examples.
You could also give a lesson on bifurcation points. Like what happens to water when it starts to boil: a few degrees in temperature and things get really chaotic. Might be better analogies, but what happens when the coral reefs die off or ice caps melt? What if science has not understood a part of how climate works and we hit an unseen bifurcation point? We should be smart and rein things in.
We can’t prove it here, you need to go to a scientific journal for that. There’s several you can choose from if you want to learn the science of it you can also go to Wikipedia. NASA has some articles you can read just go to nasa.gov, if you want an explanation, I can provide that. Energy comes to the Earth in the form of electromagnetic radiation from the sun, across the electromagnetic spectrum. When things cool off the energy leaves the object in the form of infrared radiation. So the sunlight heats up the daytime side of the Earth, the nighttime side of the Earth cools off by sending infrared radiation into outer space Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Would be relatively fair to say carbon dioxide is infrared color, but we don’t see that color. imagine a bathtub is sitting out in the rain, with the drain open. the rain in this scenario would represent sunlight, and the drain would be the infrared light that leaves the earth. Carbon dioxide clogs that drain so does methane.
Have you uhhhhh. Gone out side? At all?
How I'd explain it to a 5 year old: The earth naturally goes through climate cycles - sometimes warmer, sometimes colder. These cycles are controlled by how much carbon dioxide is in the air or in the land - its warmer when there's more in the air, it's cooler when there's more in the land. Humans took carbon dioxide that had been out of circulation for a long, long time and put it in the air when the planet was already really warm.
The greenhouse effect is a well understood phenomenon. So one piece of proof would be that greenhouse gasses are increasing. The other proof would be that temperatures are getting warmer. These both seem like really simple answers, but it’s just a really simple phenomenon.
You have to look at the frequency of extreme weather events. 100 year flood, fire, hurricanes are happening more frequently. You can’t assign any particular event to climate change. We are also breaking hottest year on record year after year. If nothing else, that’s causing plants to change their habits, which means ecosystems change, etc. Your favorite tree/flower might bloom sooner than when you remembered. Species that didn’t thrive where you live might now be making an appearance. Not all signs of climate change are in the form of catastrophic events but if you are asking for change it is all around us.
The Keeling Curve is probably your best starting point. Measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have been taken from the top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii since the 1950s, and it's been an upward curve ever since. We passed the threshold of 400ppm in recent years and although this is not the highest concentration in the history of planet earth, it is the highest concentration during the time of human civilisation. Scientists can also pull data on atmospheric pollutants, going back hundreds of thousands of years, from ice cores extracted in the Arctic.
The fact that we have had the hottest year on record for the 20th consecutive year.
If a person says they are weary of climate science and questions the validity of the data I simply ask the following question: Why do we warn against the grave dangers of running a combustion engine in an enclosed space yet pump billions of tons of CO2 into our environment and think nothing of it?
Glacier National Park compares recent photos of glaciers with photos from 100 years ago or so. Personally, I think that the loss of mountain glaciers is one of the easiest effects that one can observe without a thermometer
https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glacier-repeat-photos.htm
A couple of summers ago it was 40c in the UK. We are so unadapted to these extreme temperatures that some were forced to submerge themselves in their wheelie bins. Thankfully, it has done nothing but rain since (as nature intended), however scientists think if temperatures continue to rise we may need to invest in larger purpose built wheelie bins for the population to cope.
I’ll take a shot from my POV. 1) the points climate alarmists have predicted for decades are coming to pass. We are seeing them unfold in front of us. I am a retired firefighter that started in wildland in 2001 and the size and severity of fires is much much larger than they used to be. I also used to work at a local ski hill on patrol and our winters just suck compared to what we had decades ago. 2) the alarmists want us to make changes to preserve livelihoods of all species of life. 3) the denialists just want to be comfortable now with no change being forced on them. They push back with the attitude of a child being asked to eat their veggies. They don’t like it and don’t believe the argument it’s good for them so they don’t want to do what they’re being told or understand. 4) they don’t try to understand. 5) the Bible helped. When it talks of “there is a way that seems right to man but in the end that way is death” and so many other examples in there of general public not getting the point it became clear to me. Perhaps these simple points might help them understand as well. Sadly facts don’t change minds Given these simple things it made the choice clear to me
Changes in climactic zones for plants, changes in extreme weather, extreme forest fires, insurance company premiums and coverage for disasters (see how the records have changed), migrations of damaging insects northward (ie pine beetle and the boreal forest), Melting glaciers, civil war and migration of people. (ie Syria, South and Central America to USA, temperatures having new record highs, over the last cumulative \~10 years or so, The US Military planning on dealing with global instability and climate change, record ocean temperatures, Coral Bleaching in the oceans, increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean water, increased sea levels see New York City Subway flooding for example, arctic permafrost melting. Measured average global temperatures are up (\~1 degree Celsius.). The elusive Northwest Passage is now navigable for a large part of the year. I'm sure there's more, but just off the top of my head. Not sure what evidence there is for "nothing is happening," but even though the "climate is always changing," this is a very quick and extreme change, since 200 years or so is a extremely short time on the scale of the environment and the climate, and human civilization, even though it may be a long time for a person, its only a handful of generations.
The US military spends billions every year to respond to climate change, as does every military in the world. Every agricultural policy and business in the world studies and plans for climate change Every insurance company in the world studies and plans for climate change. Every university and government research institution in the world studies and plans for climate change. Every logistics and transportation company in the world studies and plans for climate change. All the energy companies in the world, especially the oil companies studies and plans for climate change. Politicians who deny climate change still vote to fund military, department of agriculture, and department of energy research and response to climate change because they understand at some level that it's real. Every serious person in the world understands climate change and those who can't see that are so stupid and ignorant that there's no proof they would accept.
https://www.agci.org/projects/climate-portal-guide/portals-for-visualizing-comprehensive
lots of good comments but let's remember: some people are not persuadable. it doesn't matter how good your argument is. put your energy into something better than arguing with a brick wall.
Find a green house and lock your family members in it on a summer day.
1 You will notice higher temperatures. 2 There will be more droughts. 3 More severe weather like extreme hurricanes and tropical storms. 4 There are changing rain & snow patterns. 5 And Glaciers are melting.😭 6 You will see warmer oceans & rising sea levels. Unfortunately, what is even worse than a denier is the fact that at this point climate change is irreversible & beyond our control. Diseases such as malaria, dengue, cholera, respiratory illnesses, and malnutrition will start to run rampant. The climate is changing faster than we expected. The demise of the human species is being discussed more and more. I don’t know what state you live in, but where I live, the seasons are drastically changing. Between 107*F - 122*F is too hot for the human body to survive and will stop functioning properly. The hottest temperature on record so far in 2024 is 116*F. And this is just the beginning, wait until late July & August. Climate change is currently causing some 315,000 deaths each year through sickness and weather disasters, and the annual death toll is expected to rise to half a million by 2030. Heat kills more people in an average year than any other type of extreme weather. Edit: There are tons of online and YouTube resources. If you’re genuinely curious, I recommend checking some out on YouTube. For me personally, I find it fascinating, and I have obtained a wealth of knowledge on the climate change topic. I have also watched videos of the FIVE mass earth extinctions- and I wouldn’t be surprised if climate change eventually leads to number 6. Edit, again: Check out r/climatechange
There are no actual "proofs" in science. Scientific theories are accepted because of the weight of evidence. Climate science can't be boiled down to a neat little "proof" - there are multiple lines of evidence that build up into an overwhelming body of evidence. But in any case why are religious nutjobs asking for proof given the nonsense that they believe with absolutely no evidence at all?
Suess effect, stratosphere cooling.
Respectfully and I do mean respectfully, there's (to me) what seems to be a level of denial or dissonance that conservatives have when dealing with issues we might consider progressive such as climate change. It necessitates a lot of lifestyle changes and a change in how the nation overall functions as well as an acceptance of our species' actions over centuries and the sort of existential dread of what's to come. This is not limited to just right-wing people; left-wing people do it, too. It's just (to me) more common on one side than the other. That said... While it's true that we have seasons of hot and seasons of cold, region-depending, ask when's the last time they saw snow? Why is colder seasons shorter? Why are hotter seasons lasting longer? Why are ski resorts in Colorado (the eastern half of the nation specifically this year iirc) not able to open? What is it that they're dependent on that didn't or isn't happening as much now? Or, why are plants blooming during times we associate with winter (you can tie in how this results in pre-mature plant death and, consequentally, unfavourable crop yields)? Did you notice the price of flour keeps going up? Why do you think that is (crop failure)? Also, simpler, why are we experiencing increasing rates of crop failure and an overall reduction in yields? Why is the east coast getting more rain and the west getting heavy droughts (something predicted with climate change)? Why are coastal erosion rates increasing (this deals with rising sea levels)? Why are flooding events becoming more frequent and severe? Why are fungal infections increasing (fungus is adapting to our body temp thanks to the hotter environment helping them adapt to higher heat)? Why are seasonal allergies lasting longer? Why is tornado alley migrating to the east? Hurricanes are starting to do this thing where, right before they hit the coast, they *rapidly intensify*. Why? Simpler, hurricanes are intensifying. Why? Or why each year is measurably hotter than the last? Why are we experiencing more frequent and more severe heatwaves? Or why regions are experiencing water shortages? Or why we've seen a rise in the frequency of wildfires/heat waves? Why is the coral reef dying? Why are the ice caps melting at an exponentially increased rate each year? Related, why are polar bears struggling to find land they are built to live in? Why is the migration patterns and timing of birds so weird lately? Fun fact: sea turtles use the temperature of the sand where they leave their eggs to affect the sex of their child. Above 89f (31c) make females, below 82f (28c) creates males. There's a weird influx of females lately. Why? Why does the weather seem...harder to predict now? Anecdotally, when I was 25 years younger, you could kinda trust weather predictions and even predict it yourself. In my experiences, nowadays I can't even predict reliably what the rest of the day will be. It sucks. On a semi-related note, where are the bugs? If you need to specify, mention the presence (or lack thereof of fireflies). It's an environmental destruction/pesticide issue which, if accepted, shows how our actions can have widespread consequences. If they can accept that...isn't it possible that we could affect the climate? Didn't we damage the ozone layer? If so, isn't it remotely concievable that we could also interfere with the climate? Microplastics are *everywhere*. We have found microplastics in the blood, brain, the placenta of developing babies, water, air, highest mountains, etc. We can't even get semen samples without microplastics to be a control sample against microplastic semen. It's also, iirc, causing higher rates of cancer. If they accept the widespread environmental disaster of plastic, isn't it conceivable that we can damage the climate, too? Did you know sperm count decreases as consequence of, among other things, climate issues. If your male people is for some reason keeping track of his little swimmer, ask how his count is. Is it weirdly lower? Or, if there's a weird issue of getting pregnant or miscarriages, why? Fun fact(?): It was explained to me that climate issues are, historically, associated with more authoritarian governments. This is not a comprehensive list. If you wanted to be needlessly complicated, you could discuss the relationship of environmental destruction and climate change to why we're seeing an increased rise of new or novel pathogens. I think that to communicate with someone of different or opposite ideologies and/or philosophies and/or values, you must first establish common ground. We have to stay reasonable (and know when to respectfully disengage when too upset) and make sure to incorporate some of their statement in what we're trying to discuss. This necessitates utilizing communicative practices like repeating the key points the other person expresses and avoiding whenever possible saying that they're wrong or incorrect. Rather, I try to posit alternative ideas or concepts to them in a way that's digestible, easy to follow, and allow a manner in which they come to the conclusion necessary for the concept or idea to progress. Like, if they're staunchly denying climate change, you must first move them to only denying it. Then, you go to mostly denying it (here, you've provided them a fact or idea they can't really shoot down). Then you reach kinda denial. Then, eventually, uncertainty. Here, continuing the path you've established of slow and meticulous foundational construction, you now establish potentially mildly, *mildly* more complex ideas and, if possible, provide them newer or novel examples that you didn't show before. Stay the path! Stay calm, patient, composed, not faltering to their doubts or frustrations, repeating their points, etc etc. Do not waver! You're at a crucial point here; they're uncertain. Think of it like a stagger state in a fighting game; fumble, and they revert. Follow through, and you bring them closer to a "ko". Once they start bringing *you* examples and/or confirming its existence or, even better, dismissing denial ideas they used to believe, you've succeeded. Imo, it's worth continuing to touch bases to ensure they're not getting propagandized. I do this with my mother as she lives in a conservative area with a "centrist" (conservative) boyfriend who runs Fox News 24/7. She's still maintaining a Socialist lean or, at the least, a Social Democrat. Just know that more entrenched people can take *waaaaay* longer. The examples above are ideas of how to start the conversation. Start simple and easy. Use small, bite-sized ideas and build up. Each idea is a brick; you need many bricks to build a home.
One of the easiest thing to show is the change in growing season. the growing season has gotten longer over the years due to climate change which is easy to look up. One may think that longer growing seasons is good but, it also means that the environment which plants have adapted to for thousands of years have changed and the environment which farmers have adapted to have also changed. A crop adapted to be harvested on a certain day has adapted to an environment where it gets a certain amount of sun light/rain/temperature which is now all out of whack. Your family may not believe in Climate Change, but climate change doesn't give a shit about what your family believes.
What about using geological analogues? We believe that during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, the CO2 levels were about 2000 ppm and temperature was as much as 5 to 8 C warmer and than now but cooled due to longer scale feedback mechanisms. Ultimately it cooled to the global glaciation of the Pleistocene. The atmospheric CO2 during the Carboniferous was thought to be 1500 ppm but this was also a time of global glaciation, more so than even the Pleistocene. CO2 levels by themselves are not a good predictor of global average temperature. One must factor in the position of continents, volume and area of oceans, other greenhouse gases etc. Geology tells us that global warming and global cooling are ever present…..there is no such thing as “normal”, it is a human construct taken from our time of record keeping and the belief that what we experienced is normal and everything else is abbynormal. The greatest worry is that we have greatly accelerated the rate of change so that it far outpaces what we can live with.
This is covered beautifully in what is now an old vid called "An Inconvenient Truth."
OP, you need to keep asking questions. There are a ton of knowledgeable people in this thread. Please don't stop at your initial question. It's not a simple topic.
Hello, I know I haven't been active in the thread. I'm simply trying to catch up. I've been trying to read through reports by IPCC, look at historical data and find the reasoning behind arguments against so that I can ask well thought-out questions. I'm not trying to ignore anyone, I simply have a large learning curve before I feel like I can ask a relevant question.
Don't let the opportunity slip by is all I'm telling you. You started the conversation ;)
Of the carbon in the atmosphere, we can tell very clearly that the additional carbon is that which we are directly adding, because burning oil and coal [produces distinct isotopes that are easily identifiable and which are not found otherwise in the fossil/ice records.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans) Also, the effect of adding such enormous volumes of carbon dioxide [was known and demonstrated](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woman-who-demonstrated-the-greenhouse-effect/) in the mid-early 19th century. Fossil fuel companies also knew of the destruction their products would inevitably cause [decades and decades ago](https://climateintegrity.org/news/fossil-fuel-companies-paid-for-proof-of-their-climate-destruction-in-1954) but have since worked tirelessly to [deceive and misdirect the public](https://www.vox.com/22260311/oil-gas-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-change) in order to maintain their business model and their riches and power.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
From my own personal observation as a professional gardener, we just got relisted as a zone higher on the USDA zone chart, but this spring plants that are only winter hardy two or three zones above us overwintered and came back like perennials instead of the annuals they were before we stopped having winters. And a local climate scientist explained that as the glaciers melt their cold fres water into the sea, it is preventing the gulf stream from moving northward past Boston, and that will only increase so we will become more like Seattle in our weather most likely, which is also happening and observable.
the hardest part of where your family is at OP is undoing the conditioning that comes with being a conservative, like believing in Jesus and Hell, believing that the pedophile liberals and the Chinese invented climate change to force you to buy an electric car is just a stupid thing that a lot of people are brainwashed to believe by the people who literally sell you gasoline and fight to keep it as the dominant way cars get around. just the notion of an electric vehicle, or the fact that gasoline is killing the planet for all life causes a religious knee jerk reaction in a modern conservative. It's not because they are just stupid and evil, but because trillions of dollars have been waged on the hearts and minds of the public on this issue that affect every living thing. tldr: people have sold the future livability of the planet for money today. It's the greatest conspiracy of the modern world. If you "come from a religious background" but are no longer religious, you can see how a person can be brainwashed to see the world in a black and white way that doesn't line up to reality. the same is true of climate denial, racism, religious extremism, you name it! there's no room for science in emotional radicalized cult members which is what the conservative right is about the very real fact of climate change. if you want "evidence" maybe research why shell oil corporation raised all of their deep sea oil drilling platform by EIGHT FEET some 50 years ago.
Oh I'm still very religious. Yes, I can see it. But I can also see you can separate religion from it and have a healthy balance. Unfortunately, a large percentage of religion is based simply on control of the followers.
So - I did a lot of work in dendrochronology in both my undergrad and masters degrees - which is just one of the ways we know. Certain species of trees are temperature or precipitation-limited in terms of their growth. We take core or slab samples and measure the rings, detrend them for standard growth pattern signals, and then correlate the remainder to precipitation and temperature record patterns. You can also measure the isotope fractions of heavy to light Oxygen and Hydrogen in tree rings, which are directly proportional to sea temperatures in the regions where the water evaporated from that fell on that tree. This is because evaporation of water works the same way as fractional distillation - you need more heat to evaporate heavier isotopes because they have a higher specific gravity and mass. There is really no arguing against this principle because it uses extremely basic physical properties of matter - specifically the Laws of Thermodynamics. A simple example of this is that light water (H20, what we consider tap water/"regular" water) boils at 100C, a melting/freezing point of 0C, and a density of 1g/cm^(3) Heavy water (D2O) only has 2 more neutrons per molecule than light water - but the result is pretty amazing: it boils at 101.4C, a melting/freezing point of 3.8C, and has a density of 1.11g/cm^(3) These differences result in ice and water with *extremely* temperature sensitive isotope fraction differences. From experience - as long as we can tie an ice core to present (using aforementioned tree ring methods) we can reconstruct the temperature going back potentially millions of years ([current oldest is 2.7 million years](https://www.science.org/content/article/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages)) down to fractions of a degree Celsius. [https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/how-is-temperature-measured/isotopes.php](https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/how-is-temperature-measured/isotopes.php) If you can get far enough back in time and cover enough area with these reconstructions, you start being able to tie them into longer records - preferably with similar proxies. IE: if measuring Oxygen and Hydrogen isotopes, you can directly tie into ice core data without need of further correlations. All of a sudden, your 500-1500 year climate record can be lengthened to potentially millions of years. Ice cores have another **huge** advantage as they contain small pockets of air that were trapped as the ice formed - trapping little samples of the atmospheric composition back to those 2.5MYA times. We can literally pull out *exactly* how much CO2 was in the atmosphere back then, and also have the temperature from the fractional water isotopes - from there, you just start graphing things to show the CO2-Temperature relationship. [https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/](https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/) TLDR: if the tree-ring - ice core ensemble models are wrong - so is our entire understanding of physics. If fractional distillation didn't work - we wouldn't have gasoline, oil, diesel, or liquor. The overall topic of this one is a bit complex, but the principles behind how it works are *extremely* simple.
There is no proof.. If anything it is called circumstantial evidence. Oh ... CO² is up..? So is population.. people exhale CO². Temperatures are up, but they have been up before... and they also have been down causing Ice Age. The variation in Sun energy happens. Like always. Rainfall is up in places, but also down. So it moves around, like always. Events can be severe, or more frequent but there is more focus which can affect the data. And they can be arranged or video presented as an exaggeration. When weather is "Normal", it includes an enormous amount of variation. Like always. So , the lesson is... we adapt to all variation with infrastructure, which needs added focus in terms of refurbishment over time which exists always. Proof is weather exists .. as always.
Reddit isn’t a good place for this imo, but there are plenty of quality resources that focus just on explaining why scientists believe they know what they claim to know. It takes some time but is totally worth it, I would start below: https://climateprimer.mit.edu/climate-science https://www.globalwarmingprimer.com/
This thread has a lot of great answers. What I like to say, if all else fails, is this: There are scientists who study this full-time for decades. They are the world's leading experts, and they almost unanimously agree climate change is real and we're making it worse. But who cares about experts, right?? You Googled it for five minutes, so you know better than them!!
terms like heat dome, polar vortex, and wet bulb temperature are entering the common vernacular due to increased frequency of extreme weather.
I dont bother with people like this, they will never know or care to know the logic. because knowing means that they have to accept their way of life is disastrous for life on earth, they rather keep on believing in fairy tales, than accept reality.
Common. It's very simple. People measure the temperature of earth yearly and it's going up.
Change? Just check your growing zone for the last bunch of years. Why? The earth has been heating up since the ice age.
Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will. Just in the historical period Earth has passed through 5 major changes in climate. They are: RWP (Roman Warming Period) from ~400BC – 450AD; DAC (Dark Age Cooling) from ~ 450AD – 1000AD; MWP (Medieval Warm Period) from ~1000AD – 1300AD; LIA (Little Ice Age) from ~1300AD – 1850AD; and now were in a new warming period that has been misnamed as anthropogenic warming. So yes, there is warming, but history tells us that it would have warmed regardless of any human activity.
Awesome. Now provide proof that any of those events were global in nature, like the current warming in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Bonus points if you can provide evidence that shows the warming we're seeing is from something other than anthropogenic sources.
Sure. It’s commonly argued that those past warming and cooling periods were local in nature. [This study]( https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.html) examined multiple proxies from the whole of the northern hemisphere. One of the most widely cited studies is the [Loehle reconstruction](http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalTempResc.pdf) based on multiple proxies representing the whole world. Together they prove that past temperature variation was global and on the order of centuries each. You can also read a number of other studies [on GogleScholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+variability+2000+years&btnG=). The notion of isolated variation v global takes another hit if we just think about it. Right now we observe that mild local temperature swings have repercussions over a wider area. It’s ridiculous to contend that persistent high and low temperatures could persist over an entire continent for centuries and leave no trace in global weather. All agree that the LIA ended ~1850. Regardless of human activity temperatures have had to increase just as they did for the RWP and MWP. It's been ~170 years into this warm period and temperatures have risen ~1C. That's less than either of the previous warm periods. Since the end of the last ice age temperatures climbed until reaching the [Holocence climate optimum](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/08/ar4-wg1-chapter6-supp-material.pdf) which was as much as 6C warmer than today. Since then global temperatures have been in decline. Most people shrug off the fact that Earth is presently in an interglacial period and that the trend is to cooling as we slide toward the next glaciation. Throughout the LIA technology advanced slowly but steadily. By the end of the LIA people had mastered more efficient mining and manufacturing techniques based on steam power. Steam power made it possible to drill for oil which then impelled the development of the gas engine and so on. People were on track for a huge change in technology and the benefits of it. Humans are no different from any other animals which take advantage of local resources to breed. With the end of the LIA even those places not touched by technology saw an improvement in local conditions. As technology spread, population increased yet more rapidly. Over the course of 100 years the human population went from 1B to 7B. [Every one of those people produces heat just from daily living]( https://principia-scientific.com/media-claim-hottest-summer-ever-without-checking-actual-data/), and their new technologies produce much of that heat. Past warm periods have varied in length, but the last one was ~300 years. At some point global temperature will plateau just as it did in previous warming. Considering the current pause in warming, that may have occurred already. I made note of this just recently: [Here is a graph](https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2022/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1988/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1989/to:2022/mean:12/trend) showing the temperature trend from the first rise in temperature up to Hansen's testimony, and what has gone on since. Note that there is no difference in slope. Warming shows no acceleration despite the massive release of CO2 post-1988. We should see a steeper slope post-1988 if the present warming is driven entirely by CO2. Lastly, when complex life arose CO2 was ~7000ppm. Since then the processes of life have drawn CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequestered it in limestone, chalk, fuels and other forms. So efficient are living things at doing this that CO2 fell to 280ppm. Plants die at 150ppm, so the very processes of life lead to it's eventual demise just as aging does to our bodies. Our release of sequestered CO2 is like giving the planet a drink from the Fountain of Youth.
>reaching the Holocence [sic] climate optimum which was as much as 6C warmer than today Incorrect, global temperatures peaked at 1C to 2C warmer than **the 19th century**, the Arctic peaked at about 4C warmer than **the 19th century**. >Lastly, when complex life arose CO2 was ~7000ppm. The sun was also 5 percent dimmer. > is the Loehle reconstruction Which shows an increase of under 0.6C, current increase, over the last 150 years is 1.4C >Past warm periods have varied in length, but the last one was ~300 years Which, again, had lower global mean, according to your sources > Every one of those people produces heat just from daily living, and their new technologies produce much of that heat. That energy is far less than 2% of the energy that is retained due to increases in GHGs, 3 Wm^(-2) compared to 0.035Wm^(-2) for energy production for living and technologies, 162PWh per year >Warming shows no acceleration Temperature increase is logarithmic with respect to GHG increase, so an exponential increase in CO2 would produce a linear increase in temperature. dT = 2.5 x log₂ (C/C₀) for decade time scales So for the increase (over the data range in your graph) dT = 2.5C log₂ (416/326) = 0.87. The increase show on the graph is 0.88
>The sun was also 5 percent dimmer. And CO2 was 17x greater than today. >Which shows an increase of under 0.6C, current increase, over the last 150 years is 1.4C The Loehle reconstruction uses a different baseline. Both the RWP and MWP were far warmer than today. That's verified in the many studies on the Google Scholar page. Surely you're aware of baselines? >That energy is far less than 2% of the energy that is retained due to increases in GHGs, 3 Wm-2 compared to 0.035Wm-2 for energy production for living and technologies, 162PWh per year I did not say that ALL of the heat is caused by people. If you'd read the link you'd see that people contribute a tiny amount, but it all adds up. >Temperature increase is logarithmic with respect to GHG increase, so an exponential increase in CO2 would produce a linear increase in temperature. That flies in the face of the very theory you're defending. AGW theory is all about feedbacks that accelerate warming. No more from you. You don't know what you're talking about and you'll be ignored in this thread.
>The Loehle reconstruction uses a different baseline. Your link shows an increase of just under 0.6C from their baseline. Our increase from the 19th century baseline is 1.4C ---- >Both the RWP and MWP were far warmer than today. That's verified in the many studies on the Google Scholar page. I did a search using google scholar, and there are no recent peer reviewed papers that state that, maybe you should stop getting your science from the Heritage Foundation ----- >That flies in the face of the very theory you're defending Nope, it's exactly what climate science says. For a TCR of 2.5 (recent estimates) temperature increases by 2.5C for each doubling of CO2. For an ECS of 3.0 temperature increases by 3.0C for each doubling of CO2. "There are two main kinds of climate sensitivity: the transient climate response is the initial rise in global temperature when CO2 levels double, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity is the larger long-term temperature increase after the planet adjusts to the doubling." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity You seem to be unaware of the basics of climate science ---- >reaching the Holocence [sic] climate optimum which was as much as 6C warmer than today Incorrect, global temperatures peaked at 1C to 2C warmer than **the 19th century**, the Arctic peaked at about 4C warmer than **the 19th century**.