Scorched Earth, 2200AD Climate change has done its worst, and now just 500 million humans remain on lifeboats in the north. How do they survive? https://aeon.co/essays/welcome-to-earth-2200-ad-pop-500-million-temp-180-f So what if we only reach +1.95 degrees by 2100. What will happen after that? psikKnowledge is mostly comparison. A lot of the Climate Change happen in areas of science where the normal person has nothing to compare to. Can be very confusing. Modern humans Archaeological and genetic research has shown that the first modern humans likely arose about 160,000 to 200,000 year ago). Which would mean that modern humans have already gone through the Ice Age cycles twice before. Question, how is the Ice Age ice sheet coverage damage to the earth compared to the damage caused by extra heat? I know you are thinking that will take 10,000 years to happen. Maybe not. If we have these climate “JUMPS" we could yet see an Ice Age in your lifetime. How do we know that the extra heat is not stopping the climate jumps? I really don’t know the answers. http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=BDIGeneric&aid=C98EA5B0842DBB9405BBF071E1DA7651077B1B5B&tid=17CB4F9985A14FB88AAE0ABFB41B4CC0&url=http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/summer-2016/article/discovering-our-ingenious-early-human-ancestors&c=11991229254091468433&mkt=en-us
Knowledge is mostly comparison.How in the world can you communicate with anyone when you redefine words constantly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief", though this definition is now agreed by most analytic philosophers to be problematic because of the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.Do us all a favor and change your screen name to Humpty Dumpty.
I know you are thinking that will take 10,000 years to happen. Maybe not. If we have these climate “JUMPS" we could yet see an Ice Age in your lifetime.You really ought to do a little learning before opening your mouth. There's something very fundamental happening in our atmosphere and on our planet and in our oceans - skyrocketing CO2 with it's associated cascading consequences - These days are unlike anything that's happened in the past few hundred thousand year, heck millions of years. Thinking we are at risk of a sudden shift into another ice age reveals a profound ignorance of our planet's natural processes. Our atmosphere is at 400ppm CO2 and rising, not to mention the other greenhouse gases entering the climate system. It really isn't that complicated. Just takes an honest curiosity to learn.
I know you are thinking that will take 10,000 years to happen. Maybe not. If we have these climate “JUMPS" we could yet see an Ice Age in your lifetime.You really ought to do a little learning before opening your mouth. There's something very fundamental happening in our atmosphere and on our planet and in our oceans - skyrocketing CO2 with it's associated cascading consequences - These days are unlike anything that's happened in the past few hundred thousand year, heck millions of years. Thinking we are at risk of a sudden shift into another ice age reveals a profound ignorance of our planet's natural processes. Our atmosphere is at 400ppm CO2 and rising, not to mention the other greenhouse gases entering the climate system. It really isn't that complicated. Just takes an honest curiosity to learn. This is not my thinking. It is following the data of thought by Obama’s top science advisor Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has been claimed to say that one billion could be killed by 2020 due to the Ice Age. The question that relates to this postings would be question number three. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE Now, do you want to get into the jumps or are you familiar with that line of thought? Have a question for you - Why do you ignore data from people like the President’s top science advisor? What causes this denial? When the government, (the Obama Administration) releases Climate Assessments that are the most comprehensive information to date to comprehend and assess the impacts of Climate Change on the United States. And these finding are made widely available by the websites to the American public. Why do you completely ignore this data and try and cover it up with your "denial bullshit"?
I know you are thinking that will take 10,000 years to happen. Maybe not. If we have these climate “JUMPS" we could yet see an Ice Age in your lifetime.You really ought to do a little learning before opening your mouth. There's something very fundamental happening in our atmosphere and on our planet and in our oceans - skyrocketing CO2 with it's associated cascading consequences - These days are unlike anything that's happened in the past few hundred thousand year, heck millions of years. Thinking we are at risk of a sudden shift into another ice age reveals a profound ignorance of our planet's natural processes. Our atmosphere is at 400ppm CO2 and rising, not to mention the other greenhouse gases entering the climate system. It really isn't that complicated. Just takes an honest curiosity to learn. This is not my thinking. It is following the data of thought by Obama’s top science advisor Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has been claimed to say that one billion could be killed by 2020 due to the Ice Age. The question that relates to this postings would be question number three. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE Now, do you want to get into the jumps or are you familiar with that line of thought? Have a question for you - Why do you ignore data from people like the President’s top science advisor? What causes this denial? When the government, (the Obama Administration) releases Climate Assessments that are the most comprehensive information to date to comprehend and assess the impacts of Climate Change on the United States. And these finding are made widely available by the websites to the American public. Why do you completely ignore this data and try and cover it up with your "denial bullshit"?What data? You said he said. That's not data silly.
Me thinks you have extremely biased hearing.
A sliver of correct info does not the truth make.
This may be why these contrarian types, seldom share links to the information they base their convictions on. The risk of discovery is too great.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE0:18Well, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that 0:20humans are the main cause of the warming of Earth's climate 0:23that has been measured over the past few decades. 0:25The warming is unequivocal. 0:27It is based on thermometer measurements at thousands 0:30of locations across the face of the Earth, 0:32as well as measurements from balloons and sounding 0:34rockets high in the atmosphere, and probes 0:37sampling temperatures in the ocean. 0:39Most importantly, the fingerprint of the warming, 0:42its trajectory over time and the way it varies with 0:45latitude and altitude matches what basic physics 0:49and climate models alike predict to result from 0:52the measures atmospheric buildup 0:53of heat-trapping gases. 1:04While the climate of the Earth has changed over 1:07the millennia as a result of natural factors, 1:09principally changes in the tilt and orientation 1:12of Earth's axis of rotation, and in the shape 1:14of its orbit around the sun, those changes 1:17occur far too gradually to have noticeable 1:20effects over a period of mere decades. 1:23In their current phases, moreover, 1:25they would be gradually cooling the Earth, 1:27taking us toward another ice age, 1:29if they were not being more than offset 1:31by human-caused warming.
Do us all a favor and change your screen name to Humpty Dumpty.
I know you are thinking that will take 10,000 years to happen. Maybe not. If we have these climate “JUMPS" we could yet see an Ice Age in your lifetime.You really ought to do a little learning before opening your mouth. There's something very fundamental happening in our atmosphere and on our planet and in our oceans - skyrocketing CO2 with it's associated cascading consequences - These days are unlike anything that's happened in the past few hundred thousand year, heck millions of years. Thinking we are at risk of a sudden shift into another ice age reveals a profound ignorance of our planet's natural processes. Our atmosphere is at 400ppm CO2 and rising, not to mention the other greenhouse gases entering the climate system. It really isn't that complicated. Just takes an honest curiosity to learn. This is not my thinking. It is following the data of thought by Obama’s top science advisor Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren has been claimed to say that one billion could be killed by 2020 due to the Ice Age. The question that relates to this postings would be question number three. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE Now, do you want to get into the jumps or are you familiar with that line of thought? Have a question for you - Why do you ignore data from people like the President’s top science advisor? What causes this denial? When the government, (the Obama Administration) releases Climate Assessments that are the most comprehensive information to date to comprehend and assess the impacts of Climate Change on the United States. And these finding are made widely available by the websites to the American public. Why do you completely ignore this data and try and cover it up with your "denial bullshit"?What data? You said he said. That's not data silly. What do you mean that is not data? You need to stop being a judge and listen to what people like Dr. John Holdren are saying. If you review his thinking on Climate Change, in 2009 it was reported that we could have one billion people die, do to the Ice Age by 2020. Then in 2014 Dr. Holdren said that do to Climate Change we are not going into the Ice Age as expected with the Milankovitch cycle. Dr. Holdren says in Question 3 that the cycles would be taking us into the Ice Age if they were not offset by human caused warming. That was the point of the posting. [HOLDREN: ICE AGE WILL KILL 1 BILLION Obama's science chief blames man-made carbon emissions Published: 10/09/2009 at 12:00 AM Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112317/#AoPD1rP6lSHkxCkD.99] I don’t care if Dr. Holdren was wrong about the Ice Age, there are so many pathways of data that we have to cut the scientists some slack. But is he right about the Milankovitch Cycle? Nobody is saying he is wrong. If he is right, then how does the 10K down cycle work? Some are saying that it works in Jumps. Are they correct? When a top scientist for the people makes a statement, it is data.
Me thinks you have extremely biased hearing. A sliver of correct info does not the truth make.Good, you just made my point. Dr. Holdren says the earth would be gradually cooling. Not totally agreed on by many scientists. Not all the ice cores show gradual cooling, some show jumps of cooling. But the point is that the earth is in the cooling part of the Milankovitch Cycle. Your red letter type show the point I was trying to make to you. Then my question on this point in the posting was about the jumps. You did not answer. What scares me about the climate cycles is the fast cooling of the earth. 90K to warm and only 10K to cool. As I am sure you can imagine there are many possibilities that could cause rapped cooling. What would be nice to know is that one of these Jumps will not happen in the next twenty years. One would have to assume that if Dr. Holdren was worried about the jumps, he could not bring it up to public debate, it could cause a panic. How did you get that timetable of the question? You didn’t sit and compose it did you?This may be why these contrarian types, seldom share links to the information they base their convictions on. The risk of discovery is too great.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE0:18Well, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that 0:20humans are the main cause of the warming of Earth's climate 0:23that has been measured over the past few decades. 0:25The warming is unequivocal. 0:27It is based on thermometer measurements at thousands 0:30of locations across the face of the Earth, 0:32as well as measurements from balloons and sounding 0:34rockets high in the atmosphere, and probes 0:37sampling temperatures in the ocean. 0:39Most importantly, the fingerprint of the warming, 0:42its trajectory over time and the way it varies with 0:45latitude and altitude matches what basic physics 0:49and climate models alike predict to result from 0:52the measures atmospheric buildup 0:53of heat-trapping gases. 1:04While the climate of the Earth has changed over 1:07the millennia as a result of natural factors, 1:09principally changes in the tilt and orientation 1:12of Earth's axis of rotation, and in the shape 1:14of its orbit around the sun, those changes 1:17occur far too gradually to have noticeable 1:20effects over a period of mere decades. 1:23In their current phases, moreover, 1:25they would be gradually cooling the Earth, 1:27taking us toward another ice age, 1:29if they were not being more than offset 1:31by human-caused warming.
What do you mean that is not data? You need to stop being a judge and listen to what people like Dr. John Holdren are saying.John Holdren is not data. Data was a character on Star Trek TNG. Wait a minute, this is data.
factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculationAnd this is a logical fallacy
An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is an argument that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.Once again you are redefining words to fit your ideology.
Me thinks you have extremely biased hearing. A sliver of correct info does not the truth make.Good, you just made my point. Dr. Holdren says the earth would be gradually cooling. Not totally agreed on by many scientists. Not all the ice cores show gradual cooling, some show jumps of cooling. But the point is that the earth is in the cooling part of the Milankovitch Cycle.This may be why these contrarian types, seldom share links to the information they base their convictions on. The risk of discovery is too great.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE0:18Well, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that 0:20humans are the main cause of the warming of Earth's climate 0:23that has been measured over the past few decades. 0:25The warming is unequivocal. 0:27It is based on thermometer measurements at thousands 0:30of locations across the face of the Earth, 0:32as well as measurements from balloons and sounding 0:34rockets high in the atmosphere, and probes 0:37sampling temperatures in the ocean. 0:39Most importantly, the fingerprint of the warming, 0:42its trajectory over time and the way it varies with 0:45latitude and altitude matches what basic physics 0:49and climate models alike predict to result from 0:52the measures atmospheric buildup 0:53of heat-trapping gases. 1:04While the climate of the Earth has changed over 1:07the millennia as a result of natural factors, 1:09principally changes in the tilt and orientation 1:12of Earth's axis of rotation, and in the shape 1:14of its orbit around the sun, those changes 1:17occur far too gradually to have noticeable 1:20effects over a period of mere decades. 1:23In their current phases, moreover, 1:25they would be gradually cooling the Earth, 1:27taking us toward another ice age, 1:29if they were not being more than offset 1:31by human-caused warming.
[NO!! The point is that human emissions of greenhouse gases have far, far outweighed the slight diminishment of incoming solar energy. The Milankovitch Cycles are a subtle lesson of incoming energy, which acts in concert with changing conditions on Earth. This time around the changing condition on Earth are the profoundly radical increase of our atmospheres insulation layer. It is as simple as that. Until you admit to that reality, and absorb what that means you'll remain clueless. ]Your red letter type show the point I was trying to make to you. Then my question on this point in the posting was about the jumps. You did not answer. What scares me about the climate cycles is the fast cooling of the earth. 90K to warm and only 10K to cool. As I am sure you can imagine there are many possibilities that could cause rapped cooling. What would be nice to know is that one of these Jumps will not happen in the next twenty years. One would have to assume that if Dr. Holdren was worried about the jumps, he could not bring it up to public debate, it could cause a panic. How did you get that timetable of the question? You didn’t sit and compose it did you? What are these "jumps" you've made up? What's with your 20 years? Because once long, long, long ago certain freak events came together to produce extraordinary events That doesn't mean those extraordinary events have the potential of happening any old time - but I think that is the sort of logic you are using (D,DC,L,P others help me out, am I making sense. How would you explain it?) Yohe, try reading Holdren's words again. Think boy, think. If humanity were not around, then humanity could not have dug and pumped up all those fossil fuels. Then humanity would not have been around to burn those fossil fuels. Meaning that humanity would NOT have increased our atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to 400ppm - (Consider CO2 levels had been hovering between 180ppm-300ppm for over the past million years here on Earth. Up until this past half century, now we've passed 400ppm and your type wants to pretend that don't mean a thing.) You're so damned casual and oblivious to that fundamental reality. Instead you and your select tribe instigate endless dog-chasing-tail games of mirrors and endless confusion. Never any constructive learning in there. Never a hint that others (such as actual experts) might know more than you do. In fact quite the opposite. When experts (and science communicators) correct errors, the Republican/libertarian tribe take it as a personal attack to be counted with as much viciousness and whatever it takes as someone assaulting your home and castle. Very twisted very paranoid, but it makes for great arms sales and profits. Faith based is all about sticking to your ancient dogma, listening to what them crusty old guys keep telling you. Defend the old school (ancient tribal) dogma at all costs. Obfuscation, rather than rational constructive learning and increased understanding. What this means Yohe, is that for all your concerns about a potential shift towards Ice Age conditions in the next 20 years, you would first have to magic away the past 200 years of human industry and "progress" and increasing fossil fuels burning! What I find so disgusting Yohe, is that in your disconnected world that's a totally acceptable argument to fill people's heads and time with. Waste precious irretrievable time with idiotic concerns about imagined shift to ice age. All the while, there are humans on Earth right now experiencing some of the hottest temperatures humans have ever been subjected to but it don't mean a thing to your type, ensconced in you hermetically sealed echo-chambers. Disgusting and dishonest to the point of criminality, if'n you wanted to split hairs. Yoni, in a rational world taking such musings seriously, is nothing but a mad man's ravings! But that won't stop your lot from flooding every media channel with such dishonest and very harmful drivel.
CC, I think it is quite clear to all of us except Dusty that Mike Yohe lives in a world that exists only inside his own head. See this statement, for example, “One would have to assume that if Dr. Holdren was worried about the jumps, he could not bring it up to public debate, it could cause a panic.”
This is classic conspiracy theorist thinking; lack of evidence is proof. Also consider Yohe’s habit of misinterpreting scientists’ statements. Remember when I thought he was using sacks last week? I was wrong. He is too far down the rabbit hole of his own fantasy world to realize that what he posted contradicted his beliefs. He also constantly makes up things then refuses to try backing up his statements with evidence. The saddest part is he obviously has some intelligence, but just enough to fool himself. Then again, he has the grammar and spelling skills of a kindergartner, so maybe he’s a savant. See his statement above about “rapped cooling.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a citation regarding an ice age happening in 20 years. Holden was part of a group that predicted an ice age by 2020, but that was back in 1971. We have more data and better computer models now, and the models that show we’d be sliding into an ice age in the next few millennia show how much impact our carbon emissions are having on the climate. Somehow Yohe twists this around in his mind and concludes we’re in danger of rapid cooling.
Maybe he isn’t so smart after all.
Greenland witnessed its highest June temperature ever recorded on Thursday
Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, soared to 75 degrees (24 Celsius) Thursday, marking the warmest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic country during June. Nuuk sits on Greenland’s southwest coast, where the country’s warmest weather typically occurs. It was warmer in Nuuk than it was in New York City, where the high was only 71 degrees. The Danish Meteorological Institute has confirmed on a preliminary basis that the Nuuk measurement would replace the previous record of 73.8 degrees (23.2 Celsius), which was set in Kangerlussuaq on June 15 in 2014. That temperature was also recorded in southwest Greenland about 200 miles (320 km) north of Nuuk.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/10/greenland-witnessed-its-highest-june-temperature-ever-recorded-on-thursday/ psik
Think boy, think. If humanity were not around, then humanity could not have dug and pumped up all those fossil fuels. Then humanity would not have been around to burn those fossil fuels. Meaning that humanity would NOT have increased our atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to 400ppm - (Consider CO2 levels had been hovering between 180ppm-300ppm for over the past million years here on Earth. Up until this past half century, now we've passed 400ppm and your type wants to pretend that don't mean a thing.) You're so damned casual and oblivious to that fundamental reality. Instead you and your select tribe instigate endless dog-chasing-tail games of mirrors and endless confusion. Never any constructive learning in there. Never a hint that others (such as actual experts) might know more than you do. In fact quite the opposite. When experts (and science communicators) correct errors, the Republican/libertarian tribe take it as a personal attack to be counted with as much viciousness and whatever it takes as someone assaulting your home and castle. Very twisted very paranoid, but it makes for great arms sales and profits. Faith based is all about sticking to your ancient dogma, listening to what them crusty old guys keep telling you. Defend the old school (ancient tribal) dogma at all costs. Obfuscation, rather than rational constructive learning and increased understanding. What this means Yohe, is that for all your concerns about a potential shift towards Ice Age conditions in the next 20 years, you would first have to magic away the past 200 years of human industry and "progress" and increasing fossil fuels burning! What I find so disgusting Yohe, is that in your disconnected world that's a totally acceptable argument to fill people's heads and time with. Waste precious irretrievable time with idiotic concerns about imagined shift to ice age. All the while, there are humans on Earth right now experiencing some of the hottest temperatures humans have ever been subjected to but it don't mean a thing to your type, ensconced in you hermetically sealed echo-chambers. Disgusting and dishonest to the point of criminality, if'n you wanted to split hairs. Yoni, in a rational world taking such musings seriously, is nothing but a mad man's ravings! But that won't stop your lot from flooding every media channel with such dishonest and very harmful drivel.Who should I believe, you or Dr. Holdren? Dr. Holdren does not try and connect Climate Change to a political party, you do. Dr. Holdren has taken a stand on where the earth is on the Milankovitch Cycle. I got to say, you have also agreed with where we are on the Milankovitch Cycle. One of the rare few that will take a position on that subject. That a big plus. What Dr. Holdren does not have is your magical ball, your statement - “All the while, there are humans on Earth right now experiencing some of the hottest temperatures humans have ever been subjected to but it don’t mean a thing to your type, ensconced in you hermetically sealed echo-chambers." As modern humans are now again going to the peak of the Milankovitch Cycle. How do you know that this cycle is hotter than any time in the human past? Carrie Morrill of the National Climatic Data Center explains, "You'd have to go back to the last interglacial [warm period between ice ages] about 125,000 years ago to find temperatures significantly higher than temperatures of today." https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately" So, who do I believe Carrie Morrill or you? I pick Carrie. Not only did humans live in time of higher temperatures, but “significantly higher" temperatures. I guess I have a lot of good company with me in this hermetically sealed echo-chambers you vision in your mind.
@ Mike Yohe,
Regardless of any individual interpretation, I would say “trust the data”. Well placed monitors don’t lie.
But Weather and Climate being probabilistic functions, no exact conclusions can be drawn, but we can follow long term trends, and there is evidence that these trends tend to show an increase in GW.
Moreover, I believe it has been conclusively shown that this warming trend is accelerated by human industrial activity.
As we really have no control over global trends, we can and MUST curb our own excesses. The result can then be observed and additional positive steps can be taken.
An example is the Ozone hole which was increasing every year by our release of free fluorocarbons. Once we stopped this practice, the Ozone layer has begun repairing itself and now, 40 years later, the Ozone layer is showing signs of recovery. A clear example of man’s interference with the earth’s atmosphere, which was correctable.
I am flabbergasted that someone who repeatedly states he supports the IPCC continues to spread FUD about global warming. The IPCC stated there is a 95 percent certainty mankind’s carbon emissions are driving global warming, yet Yohe keeps arguing, well something.
I am flabbergasted that someone who repeatedly states he supports the IPCC continues to spread FUD about global warming. The IPCC stated there is a 95 percent certainty mankind's carbon emissions are driving global warming, yet Yohe keeps arguing, well something.IMHO, it has something to do with the hubris that accompanies *religious faith*, the delusion that we are chosen to play a *special* role in the evolution of species on earth. In reality, to the earth we are no more than an invasive species, that will either kill its host or learn to live in symbiosis with the boundaries of the entire ecosystem.
...to the earth we are no more than an invasive species, that will either kill its host or learn to live in symbiosis with the boundaries of the entire ecosystem.We studied this in our environmental science classes in college. Seems just about every species eventually exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem it lives in, then the population crashes and another species becomes dominant. The differences are our ecosystem is the entire planet, our technology allows us to exceed the ecosystem's carrying capacity to a far greater extent than other species, and that technology is causing far more long-term damage than any other species has caused. Oh yeah, one other difference: the crash will be much more dramatic.
@ Mike Yohe, Regardless of any individual interpretation, I would say "trust the data". Well placed monitors don't lie.Thank you for a great response. The ocean monitors are great as are all the new monitors. But as we found out in the computer models, trash all the old data, just not good enough for the task at hand.
@ Mike Yohe, But Weather and Climate being probabilistic functions, no exact conclusions can be drawn, but we can follow long term trends, and there is evidence that these trends tend to show an increase in GW.History of the Ice Cores and the whole Milankovitch Cycle would be wrong if we were not warming. I agree with you completely.
@ Mike Yohe, Moreover, I believe it has been conclusively shown that this warming trend is accelerated by human industrial activity.That’s a proven fact. Problem is this is not enough data to create a baseline or datum line to separate the two causes of warming. Some people think that we don’t need to know that much about the warming. Just the fact that it is warming should be enough to start implementing changes. That was the method the United States took on the nuclear energy program in the past and it backfired on us.
@ Mike Yohe, As we really have no control over global trends, we can and MUST curb our own excesses. The result can then be observed and additional positive steps can be taken.A local effort helps but in the long run will not work. It has to be a worldwide process to fix the problem. May even entail military forces.
@ Mike Yohe, An example is the Ozone hole which was increasing every year by our release of free fluorocarbons. Once we stopped this practice, the Ozone layer has begun repairing itself and now, 40 years later, the Ozone layer is showing signs of recovery. A clear example of man's interference with the earth's atmosphere, which was correctable.Great example.
Who should I believe, you or Dr. Holdren?Well if you actually read all of Holdren's words you would realize both of us are saying the same thing. Holden is simply assuming listeners will have the brains to understanding him. I was trying to offer the background you so diligently ignore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX3Xhw6ufnE0:18Well, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that 0:20humans are the main cause of the warming of Earth's climate 0:23that has been measured over the past few decades. 0:25The warming is unequivocal. 0:27It is based on thermometer measurements at thousands 0:30of locations across the face of the Earth, 0:32as well as measurements from balloons and sounding 0:34rockets high in the atmosphere, and probes 0:37sampling temperatures in the ocean. 0:39Most importantly, the fingerprint of the warming, 0:42its trajectory over time and the way it varies with 0:45latitude and altitude matches what basic physics 0:49and climate models alike predict to result from 0:52the measures atmospheric buildup 0:53of heat-trapping gases. 1:04While the climate of the Earth has changed over 1:07the millennia as a result of natural factors, 1:09principally changes in the tilt and orientation 1:12of Earth's axis of rotation, and in the shape 1:14of its orbit around the sun, those changes 1:17occur far too gradually to have noticeable 1:20effects over a period of mere decades. 1:23In their current phases, moreover, 1:25they would be gradually cooling the Earth, 1:27taking us toward another ice age, 1:29if they were not being more than offset 1:31by human-caused warming.