Here's what we know for sure: The topic is highly politicized and used a tool of control.
We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before. We know this is not natural. We know that prior to the 70s the world was cooling.
Reversing climate change is an aim to make society and the world better as a whole. Not for "control".
Also relevant, a few times in the Pleistocene, 20,000 years ago, temperatures peaked a couple degrees hotter than they are now.
> We know for sure that the average temperatures have risen higher in the last 40 years than they have ever before.
This could be a year over year increase in maximum, with a very small slope too
Limiting our interference in this natural process will necessitate vast methods and quantities of 'control'. Nevertheless, it should be done. And fortunately, this process will herald a new economic expansion providing jobs and creativity outlets for countless people worldwide.
Irrespective of the nature of climate change, humans are humans and a crisis or enemy, if you will, will always be an opportunity for people to assert control. The difficult task is understanding when that control is a reasonable response to the crisis and when the crisis is an excuse to assert control. This is not an exclusive choice, both types of efforts can be going on simultaneously.
We seem to have become numb to the large numbers that are now thrown around as part of defining public policy. When you start manipulating multiple trillions of dollars it is naive to think that isn't an opportunity for manipulation of all sorts.
This is untrue.
Here's what we do know: The earth has historically been much hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere (much more) than it is today. There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse.
Just because something happened in Earth's past doesn't mean it's a good thing for us, nor is it a good idea for us to slingshot our way very quickly toward that balmy future.
That's only true in some cases with strong emphasis on "some". If you want to know how much of that is true and how much is wrong just watch this video https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703
I don't think I can do it justice with a butchered summary on HN but I'll keep it long enough to get you hooked. There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one.
We have basically skipped the first phase by emitting CO2 directly. If anything, this should worry us even more because there is evidence that increased temperatures drive CO2 emissions as well. So we haven't skipped the first phase at all, it's going to happen in the future.
Feedback loops have been predicted by many scientists. What could happen is this: "man-made CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more CO2 -> even higher temperatures".
I recommend you to watch the entire video. Not just the segment I linked.
That same content creator also made a whole playlist concerning climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
This is evidence that CO2 is not causative of warming. You can wrap this in whatever additional logic you like, but nobody's buying it.
In any case, if there was an increasing feedback loop, then we'd see that with the #1 greenhouse gas, water. We're not, so we're not in a feedback loop.
Anything you average over 300 years will tend to flatten. If you averaged the last 100 years over the last 300 years it would not look as dramatic too.
So the graph is manipulative to say they least.
Because the recent data is over a period of 166 years, you can turn the line into 10 dots which represent each 16.6 year 'line' average.
I think you should try this yourself. You will find that the averaging only smooths out brief transients between your new dots. In the case of the comic, it has no effect on the gradient at 2016.
Having more data doesn't change the average slope - it simply allows you to measure average slope over shorter distances.
So unless you think the joke was "haha we've been at this temperature before", I suggest it is you who is being ... what you said.
So try and put it into a 300 year or higher average span and you will see it flattening.
But don't take my word for it.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cart...
You've just shown us all that the gradient started to shift upwards less than 300 years ago.
Seriously, look at some basic calculus. Try to understand what you are doing.
I look forward to your further efforts in debunking climate data misinformation.
Here is what we know: Anthropogenic climate change is a fact[1]
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
I'm confident this statement describes others better than it describes myself.
Here's what we know: The earth was hotter before, the earth's temperature has been rising for 100's of thousands of years, the CO2 levels have been higher before, there's evidence that CO2 levels lagged temperature increases historically, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, all recent climate prediction models have been wrong, historic data has been 'normalized' and changed, repeatedly.
Whatever you think has been debunked hasn't. I've been around longer than a day, I've seen the shifting climate alarmists goal posts.
No one's claiming that the planet hasn't seen worse. It's been worse. It's been freezing cold for hundreds of millions of years. It's been blazing hot for hundreds of millions of years. No one is claiming that this is either new or dangerous for the planet. It's neither of that.
It is however potentially fatal for our global civilization. Since the early 70ies, the climate models have been pretty spot on. Especially before climate change denialism (to protect profit margins) turned climate sciences into a hot potato, mainstream predictions have been pretty good.
Now, its not that a few degrees warmer temperature is going to kill people. At least not many. But with rising temperatures, people will start doing what they've been doing since the dawn of time when things got uncomfortable in one place; they start moving and migrating. And do you know what no country with static borders is good at dealing with? Moving populations and migrations.
That always causes chaos and turmoil.
Then there's the trouble with water; as soon as the weather patterns start changing because of anthropogenic climate change, we'll have conflicts about water. In some parts of the world this has already started. China is currently doing a lot of projects with "its" streams and is redirecting a lot of water. Much to the chagrin of it's southern neighbors.
Another source of troubles.
And then, finally, is our flailing ecosystem which has been under massive attack for the last 250 years and is -- slowly but surely -- crumbling under the weight of a sheer 8 billion people wanton for food and shelter. Not for nothing we've lost almost 60% of insects in the last 50 years and almost half of the animal populations; impending ecosystem collapse.
Fun times ahead!
Some countries are over populated. Those countries should stop that. Many people live in water scarce regions. Those people should move (EG, most of California).
I'm in favor of radical environmental reforms, but I don't care one bit about CO2 emissions.