This is why there is no hope……..you think this will ever change? Seriously? Never.

@Sgt_Spanky @CuddyCruiser I can't say you guys are wrong. We might already be completely effed. But I do hold a sliver of hope that we can prevent the worst case scenario from playing out. It's not too far fetched to think that we not only go carbon zero by 2050, but that we build enough green energy capacity to go carbon negative, sucking greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It's getting more and more difficult to deny that the problem is real. In fact, impossible, except in the cases of a few wackjobs whose opinions don't matter anyway (e.g. @1patriot). It's possible that we avoid the worst. I'm not saying its very probable, but I feel we have to keep trying.

@Flyingsaucesir I hope you’re right

But there is a tipping point looming. If/when the north pole melts, at some point it may push the Gulf stream farther south. Given that London is slightly north of Calgary, we may ironically experience much colder weather than usual.

Chill out, mate, and let's not play a true-or-false game because climate change is a very complicated matter.

There is probably a lot of information, not necessarily wrong but sensationalizing and catastophizing climate change, and media, as usual, are happy to stir things up.

Meanwhile, experts like meteorologists have been carefully monitoring and studying climate change, including gathering observation data, using model simulations, evaluation and analysis, etc., etc.

Among their studies, attribution studies should be noted by which they try to determine how BOTH natural factors and human-activity factors are contributing to extreme weather conditions.

Attribution studies are very time consuming, and the UK Met Office states, very carefully:
Because current trends in extreme rainfall are within past natural variation, it can be difficult to isolate effects on our longer-term rainfall due to human influence by looking only at the observational record. A study using high-resolution climate models predicts that the influence of human-caused climate change will likely not be seen clearly in short-duration (hourly and shorter timescale) extreme rainfall trends in the UK until at least the 2040s for winter and 2080s for summer.
[metoffice.gov.uk]

@Ryo1 in the beginning the climate model were very flawed they are getting better now. Do CMIP5 Models Skillfully Match Actual Warming?
A comparison of the global mean surface temperatures (GMST) from 1970 to 2020 to the climate models from the fifth Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP5) historical and projection shows good agreement. At first look, this appears to contradict the statement “The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC“ in CLINTEL’s ‘World Climate Declaration’. Nic Lewis published an article with the subtitle “Why matching of CMIP5 model-simulated to observed warming does not indicate model skill”. Lewis wrote that the good agreement “is perhaps unsurprising given that modelers knew when developing and tuning their models what the observed warming had been over most of this period.” Climate models on average have higher climate sensitivity than indicated by empirical observations, even when assuming that none of the observed warming was caused by the urban heat island effect or natural climate change. The set of CMIP6 climate models used for the 2021 IPCC working group 1 report are even more sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases than the CMIP5 models. The match of GMST to the climate model average would indicate model skill only if changes in the climate forcings of greenhouse gases and aerosols match the actual changes in those climate forcings. The climate forcings changes are the effect on global radiative flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere that causes a temperature change.

Lewis compares the effective radiative forcing (ERF) given in Annex III of the IPCC AR6 report to that used in the climate models over 1970-2020. From 1970 to 1988 the models’ ERF was too high, and after 2007 it was too low. The linear trend change of the actual ERF over the period was 2.66 W/m2 while that of the climate models was 1.92 W/m2. That is, the models used only 72% of the actual climate forcing to fudge the surface temperatures to roughly match the observed warming. Based on the first and last decade, the ratio of actual to model forcing is 1.46. The discrepancy is largely due to the models’ incorrect aerosol forcing both before 1988 and after 2007. The models’ over-sensitivity was canceled out by increasing the ERF much less than the IPCC estimated ERF increase. [wattsupwiththat.com]

@1patriot Dude! Really? So the melting of glaciers around the world (and consequent sea level rise), the drying out (and consequent burning) of forests, the increase in intensity (and consequent flooding) of storms, the unprecedented heat waves (and consequent spike in heat-related deaths), these things are what? Just media hype? Please! You don't have to be a scientist to see it. It's happening in real time now.

@1patriot Yeah, yeah, I hear you, mate, but it doesn't mean it's a total lie that human activities are contributing to claimate change. They are currently looking into all possible contributing factors to climate change. And like you say, technologies like simulation models used in attribution reseach are constantly improving, and whatever has been found so far, it's not conclusive yet. So, let's not go around call anyone a liar because they have different views from yours. Cheers.

@1patriot When you copy/paste someone else's writing into a thread you should say who you are quoting and put their words in quotation marks. Failure to do this is called plagiarism.

@1patriot, @Ryo1 Actually, the science is conclusive. It's only OUTSIDE of science that we find any controversy over whether global warming is real or not. The fossil fuel industry has done a spectacular job of sowing doubt in the minds of lay people. But climate scientists are not fooled for one minute.

@Flyingsaucesir fuck off you can't look it up! i made no claim as to owning it!

@Flyingsaucesir wrong science is never settled and the one of greenhouse gas is we do not live in a green house...and my green house i use CO2 for the plants
signed by fucking me !

@Flyingsaucesir Climate change is real, but science is not conlusive.

@Flyingsaucesir wow the sea or oceans are not rising, more people die from cold than from heat show your News article that show a large amount of people died from heat exhaust. show the articles on flooding do to permanent ocean or sea rise. Thwaites Ice Shelf (TWIS), the floating extension of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is changing rapidly and may completely disintegrate in the near future. Any buttressing that the ice shelf provides to the upstream grounded Thwaites glacier will then be lost. Previously, it has been argued that this could lead to onset of dynamical instability and the rapid demise of the entire glacier. Here we provide the first systematic quantitative assessment of how strongly the upstream ice is buttressed by TWIS and how its collapse affects future projections. By modeling the stresses acting along the current grounding line, we show that they deviate insignificantly from the stresses after ice shelf collapse. Using three ice-flow models, we furthermore model the transient evolution of Thwaites Glacier and find that a complete disintegration of the ice shelf will not substantially impact future mass loss over the next 50 years.[agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

@Flyingsaucesir your second question yes media is paid by big corporation to push the the climate bull shit! any corporation that can make money from the bullshit story and if you look at it there's lot companies that can make money from the hype.....window, heating, cooling, insulation, medication etc.

@1patriot If you don't use quotation marks, and don't give attribution, then its plagiarism. But if you say you didn't know that, I will accept it...this time.

@1patriot You appear to fundamentally misunderstand science. Science makes conclusive judgements about nature all the time; has done so for centuries. Take, for instance, the scientific conclusions, after the work of luminaries like Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo, that the Earth is a sphere, that it orbits the sun, and that the orbit is elliptical. Once very much in doubt, these are now accepted, settled, conclusive scientific facts. Or take Charles Darwin's proposition that all species evolve through natural selection acting on the natural variations in every population: a fact that is, among biologists, settled science. Evolutionary change has already been measured in real time in hundreds of species. The evidence is overwhelming. Likewise Einstein's theory of relativity. It has been confirmed over and over, in a variety of different ways. So yes, there is such a thing as conclusive science. Does that mean there is no more to learn? No! We keep building on previous conclusions. That is how it works.

@Flyingsaucesir 80 people start forest fire in Canada more than like hired! yea wakey wakey is all i can tell the brain dead fuckers on this site...i am not your enemy....i am just a messenger look at the science really science not fucking Google, microsoft, the big corporation are lying to you and they own the government.....if you don't have time to look it to fuck off and leave me alone as i have people to inform i will not waste any more time on some one that can not learn to research have a good life....

@Flyingsaucesir Charles Darwin's theory is still a theory....if so how is that stettled

@1patriot It's not how the fire starts; it's the dry fuel that keeps it going. Boreal forests all over the world are drying out due to... anthropomorphic global warming.

@1patriot How can a theory be settled?

I usually charge $75/hour for tutoring, but for you, today, I will make an exception.

Let's start at the beginning.

A conjecture is basically a guess about the nature of something that is unknown or not well understood. There may not be any good way to test a conjecture.

A hypothesis is an educated guess, one that can be tested.

After rigorous and repeated testing, if the results consistently indicate that the hypothesis is correct, then what we learned from the process may be called a fact.

A theory is an explanation that unifies and makes sense of a set of facts that otherwise may appear unrelated. This unifying explanation opens up entirely new avenues of inquiry. One of the hallmarks of a correct theory is that it allows us to successfully predict future discoveries.

Example:

It is a fact that the east coasts of the Americas look as if they fit, like jigsaw puzzle pieces, with the west coasts of Africa and Europe.

It is a fact that the Pacific Ocean is ringed by volcanoes.

It is a fact that all the world's oceans have mid-ocean volcanic ridges.

It is a fact that ocean bottom rocks are youngest at the ridges and are progressively older the farther away they are from the mid-ocean ridge.

It is a fact that ocean bottom rocks plunge underneath continental rocks along steep fault planes.

It is a fact that the strongest earthquakes ever recorded occur along the faults between oceanic and continental rocks.

It is a fact that a major fault runs through California, and the motion along it is right-lateral strike-slip (not at all like the fault that plunges under the west coast of South America).

At first glance, it may appear that these facts are unrelated. In fact, they ARE related. And their relationships to each other is explained by a theory: the theory of plate tectonics.

This theory says that the Earth's crust is divided into distinct plates that constantly move around and jostle each other. The movement of the plates is driven by convection currents in the mantle, which are in turn driven by heat generated through the decay of radioactive elements in the rocks. Formulation of this theory opened up the field of geology, allowing a cascade of successful predictions about faults, volcanoes, stratigraphy, geophysical properties of rocks, etc., etc.

Review:

A theory is not to be confused with a conjecture or hypothesis.

A conjecture is a guess.

A hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested.

A hypothesis that has been tested and found to be correct can be called a fact.

A theory is an explanation that unifies and makes sense of a disparate set of facts.

Conclusion:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is such a theory. It has proven to be so successful, that it is now considered the grand unifying theory of biology. The biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

@Flyingsaucesir they ain't dried out fuck we had nothing but rain the government hire fire bugs to light it up so dummy like you would think it's from the global warming. they keep indoctrinating you with shit it's up to you to stop them from lying. i am just messenger

@Flyingsaucesir wasn't hard to convince you of climate change they started on you young...the same shit today indoctrinating children in school now....the billionaire's don't send their children to school

@Flyingsaucesir it can accepted but it's never settled!

@1patriot I have seen the dead trees and dying forests with my own eyes.

@1patriot Maybe we have different notions of the meaning of the word "settled." What I mean by it is that, in the context of biology, the idea that all species evolve by natural selection acting on the natural variation in populations is universally accepted. (By universally, I mean 99.9% of biologists agree that Darwin was correct. In any large group you will inevitably find an oddball 0.1% who have sold out to corporate interests or to religious ideology.) However, this high acceptance does not imply that there is not always more to learn. In fact, new discoveries usually prompt more questions, and science does not rest on its laurels. In that sense, nothing is ever settled. There is always more to know, and scientists will keep on digging, never reaching an end.

@Flyingsaucesir send me your peer review on Charley Darwin as this is over the 140 some year i am sure they must have peer reviewed...... or agree with me if you can! LOL

@1patriot (sigh) I have offered you solid guidance on the nature of science in general, and biology in particular. If you don't believe me, I suggest you consult any good college textbook. I recommend Campbell's Biology, published by Benjamin Cummings. Good luck.

@Flyingsaucesir your fucking air head can't admit he wrong...poor baby! the science isn't settled, and you have no peer review that it! you presented fuck all!

@1patriot l tried to help you. Oh well.

@Flyingsaucesir you tried to hide your fuck up !
A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases. The IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming recorded in government temperature datasets. However, this new study shows that urban warming accounts for 40% of the warming. The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.

best to start doing some reading you will find it's all a lie...follow the money 97% of the scientist were paid to say the climate is warming. well ignoring 1600 scientist from around the world. Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data. [wattsupwiththat.com]

@1patriot <---- HAHAHAHA !!! what a putz. don't look up

@Leetx better start looking in the mirror i find statements like your are from ignorant. if you follow the money some scientist will say any thing you want.

@1patriot you embarrass yourself hun.

@Leetx your ignorance is embarrassing fucking brain washed fuck!