Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[sjastro]

well ... according to science there has been warming and cooling going on for millions of years ... long before mankind ... to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo ... we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the manipulations are very minimal and very localized? Controlling the weather globally? (naw). Who's to not say we are in another "particular age" or between ages?

Let’s try again with lower stratospheric cooling, this time with pictures.

We stupid humans have been able to change earth’s thermodynamic behaviour through AGW.
We are now at or near a tipping point beyond which reversing AGW becomes increasingly more difficult if not impossible.

Throughout out earth’s geological history various factors have caused global warming.
(1) Variations in earth's orbit affecting the eccentricity of the orbit around the sun, as well as the precession and tilt of earth's rotational axis.
(2) Solar variability resulting in an increase of solar radiation striking the earth’s surface.
(3) Paleogeographic changes where the location and movement of continents, mountain uplift, and the opening or closing of ocean passages have significantly influenced climate patterns.
(4) Volcanic emissions.
(5) Atmospheric composition such as fluctuations in the levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane in the atmosphere.
(6) Ocean currents where the movement of ocean currents are influenced by earth's rotation and temperature differences between the tropics and poles resulting in redistribution of heat and moisture across the planet's surface.

None of these naturally occurring events will cause the lower stratosphere and troposphere to be out of phase.
For example volcanic emissions will increase CO₂ levels but also particulate matter and aerosol levels which can have both a net cooling or heating effect on the lower stratosphere and troposphere which remain in phase.
Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases has been driven by increases in temperature in the lower stratosphere and troposphere which remain in phase.

We do have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth and it's habitants ... such as minimizing pollution and we have taken some steps in that direction and should continue to do so ... such as better minimizing pollution from fossil fuels.

You quoted the Bible and stated our fate is sealed and there is nothing we can do.
This is a cop out, an attack on science’s attempt of restoring CO₂ equilibrium levels and shows a definite lack of moral responsibility towards the plight of future generations.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping gas, also known as a greenhouse gas, that comes from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas), from wildfires, and natural processes like volcanic eruptions.

Can we exceed the C02 levels that are emitted due to that which is emitted by natural processes?

How much of C02 has been reduced by the things we have done thus far?

CO₂ emissions continue to increase.

How much have we extended earth's time by doing what we have done so far?

Regarding time .... many scientific theories about it ... but it takes a physical mind

Time

Does time have a beginning and a end?

Any end to a process of change itself represents a process the end of which requires a further change-ending event, and so on. Hence there cannot be a beginning or end to time because there cannot be a first or last change, and time is just the measure of change. If there isn't a mind to experience change then it can't be measured because there isn't a mind to measure it. We observe time in accordance to planet earth ... outside of that represents what some of us call eternity ... science says our universe is continuously expanding (which is the same as eternity - no end) unless one accepts the theory of a closed universe.

The currently accepted view of physics is that time is as real as space. Time is sometimes thought of as 'just' the fourth dimension, but it seems as though it is somehow different from the three dimensions of space. For a start, it appears to flow in only one direction.

(The underlined above is what I call "scientific loose language") ... that is ... not actual definite knowns (facts) but possibilities ... not indisputable facts.

Just saying there are a lot of scientific ideas about it.

Time is a fundamental aspect of our lives, shaping the way we think and experience the world around us. Many scientists and philosophers argue that time is not a fixed and objective reality, but rather a subjective and human-made illusion.

I'm with the scientists that believe time is a human-made illusion ... you are not ... OK ... we pick our scientists. But don't make statements that we are science deniers .. because there are MANY scientists that believe it is a human-made illusion.

Oh come now isn’t your “time is made up” theme motivated by creationism and nothing can be older than the genealogies in the Bible?
Any evidence which contradicts the Bible can therefore be summarily dismissed as time is simply made up and is nothing more than a measurement.

The energy-time relationship ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle mentioned previously destroys this argument.
There is no mathematical operator for time T in quantum mechanics which takes on the form T|Ψ> = t|Ψ> where t is the time measurement, unlike energy E , position x and momentum p which are measurable according the equations H|Ψ> = E|Ψ>, X|Ψ> = x|Ψ> and P|Ψ> = p|Ψ> respectively.

Δt is a physical time difference which explains why virtual particles can pop into and out existence in a quantum vacuum lasting only a sextillionth of a second to the half-life of ²³⁸U which is 4.46 billion years.

 

[SelfSim]

...
Δt is a physical time difference which explains why virtual particles can pop into and out existence in a quantum vacuum lasting only a sextillionth, {10^-21}, of a second to the half-life of ²³⁸U which is 4.46 billion years.

As an aside:

Interestingly, I can't find where that's actually been measured(?)

As at Oct 2020, the shortest time interval measured appears to be 247 zeptoseconds, (where 1 zeptosecond = 10^-21 seconds), which is the travel time of a photon across a hydrogen molecule.

Needless to say, this measurement now meets the requirements for accepting it as part of science's Objective Reality.

 

[eclipsenow]

to think mankind can control the earths weather globally on a large scale is ridiculous imo ...

Climate is not weather - but can impact weather. Climate is the earth’s average temperature over a 20 year period. Analysis: What the new IPCC report says about when world may pass 1.5C and 2C - Carbon Brief Weather is what happens in your location on a daily basis.

we can and do manipulate it some what (such as cloud seeding) but the manipulations are very minimal and very localized? Controlling the weather globally? (naw). Who's to not say we are in another "particular age" or between ages?

The climate scientists that study paleoclimate and the whole climate system have ruled out natural causes. Who's to say? The IPCC says. That should be enough for you.

The main way climate change impacts the weather is by accelerating the water cycle.

Increased temperatures mean the land dries faster. Weirdly (to myself with only a social sciences background) physics says warmer air carry 7% more water for every extra degree Celsius. Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect - NASA Science Also - the extra heat means climate zones will shift. Plants and animals will try to shift up mountains or closer to the poles as they did in previous climate changes. Effects - NASA Science

But this time something is different. Us. Our agriculture and grazing and cities have taken over half the land surface of the earth. Tiny islands of nature cannot move they way they used to across the 800 years it took to go from glacial to interglacial periods. Our farming is in the way, and our climate change is MUCH faster!

 

[eclipsenow]

Can we exceed the C02 levels that are emitted due to that which is emitted by natural processes?

How much of C02 has been reduced by the things we have done thus far?

As others have said - yes - and the paleoclimate proxies show our CO2 is much faster and greater than natural emissions for the past 10's of millions of years. There was a period about 55 million years ago where nature beat even what we've done today through increased volcanism releasing more CO2 - but it took tens of thousands of years to do it! It was a much slower rate of release.

Also, the different isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere show it's us.

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

RealClimate: Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion. Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have...

www.realclimate.org

Also - as stated above - the IPCC has not found any other natural variability that accounts for today's warming.

 

[sjastro]

As an aside:

Interestingly, I can't find where that's actually been measured(?)

As at Oct 2020, the shortest time interval measured appears to be 247 zeptoseconds, (where 1 zeptosecond = 10^-21 seconds), which is the travel time of a photon across a hydrogen molecule.

Needless to say, this measurement now meets the requirements for accepting it as part of science's Objective Reality.

I’m not sure how such small times of the order 10⁻²¹ second for virtual particles can even be directly measured.
The way around this is to look at the energy time Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π by introducing the reduced Planck’s constant h-bar ħ = h/2π.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle then becomes ΔE.Δt ≈ ħ/2.
It is found when a quantum state decays there is an uncertainty in the energy values measured.
It does not follow a normal or Gaussian distribution but a special distribution known as the Breit-Wigner distribution.

A feature of this distribution is the uncertainty in energy ΔE is the width of this distribution half-way up the curve as illustrated and is labelled Γ and the uncertainty in energy ΔE can be approximated as ΔE ≈ Γ/2 = ħ/2τ where τ is the lifetime of the state.
In this case τ is simply Δt and ΔE ≈ ħ/2Δt which is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Δt is calculated from the uncertainty in the energy measurements, if ΔE is very small then Δt becomes very large such as the decay ²³⁸U.
Conversely when ΔE is very large for the creation and annihilation of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum then Δt is very small.

 

[Ophiolite]

My main hope is that our responsibility for climate change does not turn out to be the explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

 

[eleos1954]

And yet it is known, both the recent climatic change and the most of the more ancient ones.

Humanity as a whole has done *some* things to limit CO2 emissions, but frankly not that much so far.

This makes no sense. The Earth isn't going to explode or something. Even humanity will go on in some form even if all civilization collapses.

here's the point ... I (and many others} don't deny there are climatic changes happening ... what is argued is ... what is the cause(s) ... and can mankind do anything significant to control it. It's debatable.

If we have done "some" things ... is it measurable? If not, how much would need to be done for it to be measurable. When I mean measurable ... I mean how much that we may do equates to how much time for humanity has been prolonged.

The only real data we have is (144 years)

before 1880, there just wasn't enough data to make accurate calculations, resulting in uncertainties in these older records.

 

[Hans Blaster]

here's the point ... I (and many others} don't deny there are climatic changes happening ... what is argued is ... what is the cause(s) ... and can mankind do anything significant to control it. It's debatable.

If we have done "some" things ... is it measurable?

Yes! That's the whole point of our various responses.

If not, how much would need to be done for it to be measurable. When I mean measurable ... I mean how much that we may do equates to how much time for humanity has been prolonged.

The only real data we have is (144 years)

before 1880, there just wasn't enough data to make accurate calculations, resulting in uncertainties in these older records.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If we have done "some" things ... is it measurable?

Remember how we were talking about the doubling of CO2 emissions (with humanity producing about as much as nature on its own) resetting the equilibrium?

We can measure the shift in atmospheric CO2

 

[eleos1954]

I'll try and make this my last post on 'time is an illusion' .. its an important issue to be dealt with.

My own stance, (FWIW), is that I actually agree with most of the statements in the supporting references you've posted because there is clear objective evidence supporting them, yet I disagree with the inference that time therefore an illusion. This cannot be the case when we all perceive/experience time, (past, present, future), in the normal ways we do. We cannot step outside of our own minds' perceptions and claim that our minds exist in an illusionary state, when its our own minds which are also completely involved in the development of the reference standards against which Illusions are compared and then concluded (ie: physical measurements).

Either everything is an illusion, (in which case, 'illusion' loses its meaning), or its not and the concept of time is a fundamental baseline our minds require, in order to make sense of all our conscious perceptions/experiences.

I am not saying everything is an illusion ... yes we can step outside of our own minds ... we have the ability of abstract thinking

Time is an abstract concept that represents the progression of events and the duration of experiences.

A lot of science is based on abstract thinking (nothing wrong with that) it is how they come up with various theories.

Time is based on the experience of change, but it is essentially a product of the human mind. Conscious beings interpret events in terms of time, but time is an abstract category and it does not exist in the inanimate physical world.

Time does not exist without a human mind to perceive it. Time cannot exist without consciousness. It only exists in the human mind.

Did things exist before mankind? Yes of course, but before that there was nobody (a conscience mind) to measure it.

(time) its an important issue to be dealt with

It most certainly is.

 

[eleos1954]

Let’s try again with lower stratospheric cooling, this time with pictures.

View attachment 346429
View attachment 346430​

We stupid humans have been able to change earth’s thermodynamic behaviour through AGW.
We are now at or near a tipping point beyond which reversing AGW becomes increasingly more difficult if not impossible.

Throughout out earth’s geological history various factors have caused global warming.
(1) Variations in earth's orbit affecting the eccentricity of the orbit around the sun, as well as the precession and tilt of earth's rotational axis.
(2) Solar variability resulting in an increase of solar radiation striking the earth’s surface.
(3) Paleogeographic changes where the location and movement of continents, mountain uplift, and the opening or closing of ocean passages have significantly influenced climate patterns.
(4) Volcanic emissions.
(5) Atmospheric composition such as fluctuations in the levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane in the atmosphere.
(6) Ocean currents where the movement of ocean currents are influenced by earth's rotation and temperature differences between the tropics and poles resulting in redistribution of heat and moisture across the planet's surface.

None of these naturally occurring events will cause the lower stratosphere and troposphere to be out of phase.
For example volcanic emissions will increase CO₂ levels but also particulate matter and aerosol levels which can have both a net cooling or heating effect on the lower stratosphere and troposphere which remain in phase.
Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases has been driven by increases in temperature in the lower stratosphere and troposphere which remain in phase.

You quoted the Bible and stated our fate is sealed and there is nothing we can do.
This is a cop out, an attack on science’s attempt of restoring CO₂ equilibrium levels and shows a definite lack of moral responsibility towards the plight of future generations.

CO₂ emissions continue to increase.



Oh come now isn’t your “time is made up” theme motivated by creationism and nothing can be older than the genealogies in the Bible?
Any evidence which contradicts the Bible can therefore be summarily dismissed as time is simply made up and is nothing more than a measurement.

The energy-time relationship ΔE.Δt ≥ h/4π of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle mentioned previously destroys this argument.
There is no mathematical operator for time T in quantum mechanics which takes on the form T|Ψ> = t|Ψ> where t is the time measurement, unlike energy E , position x and momentum p which are measurable according the equations H|Ψ> = E|Ψ>, X|Ψ> = x|Ψ> and P|Ψ> = p|Ψ> respectively.

Δt is a physical time difference which explains why virtual particles can pop into and out existence in a quantum vacuum lasting only a sextillionth of a second to the half-life of ²³⁸U which is 4.46 billion years.

If mankind don't exist ... how much time has past?

 

[eleos1954]

Remember how we were talking about the doubling of CO2 emissions (with humanity producing about as much as nature on its own) resetting the equilibrium?

We can measure the shift in atmospheric CO2

View attachment 346472

ok ... so ... how does this compare with what happened a million years ago?

 

[essentialsaltes]

ok ... so ... how does this compare with what happened a million years ago?

Just one million years? Going back almost that far, we see the CO2 fluctuating a bit, but on scales of thousands of years, where the recent rise due to human activity is essentially a vertical line.

Going back hundreds of millions of years, there is even more variation, including times when the CO2 level was much higher than it is now. But again, these changes occurred over 10s of millions of years, not decades. What we are seeing now is that human activity is rapidly driving the system out of the relative equilibrium.... into.... something else.

 

[SelfSim]

yes we can step outside of our own minds ... we have the ability of abstract thinking

Yet we can see that you're offering 'the ability of abstract thinking' as the primary demonstration of us stepping outside of our own minds?????

Do you not see that as being nonsensical? What is doing the 'thinking' there, then? One cannot demonstrate mind independence (or 'stepping outside of our minds') by using a mind to do it .. namely because that's not what mind 'stepping outside of our minds' (or mind independence) means!

Time is an abstract concept that represents the progression of events and the duration of experiences.

A lot of science is based on abstract thinking (nothing wrong with that) it is how they come up with various theories.

Time is based on the experience of change, but it is essentially a product of the human mind. Conscious beings interpret events in terms of time, but time is an abstract category and it does not exist in the inanimate physical world.

Ok .. so I think you're objecting to using extrapolation forwards and backwards in time, (ie: an abstraction), in order to infer the results of such extrapolations as being real (exists) or not?

The flaw in that argument is you need the meaning of 'existence in the inanimate physical world' to be speaking of 'a world' which is truly mind independent, which is nonsensical (for the same reasons I outlined above). Everything in that phrase depends on meanings assigned by human minds .. it therefore, in no way, demonstrates a truly mind independent 'existence in the inanimate physical world' .. exactly the opposite of that, in fact .. its yet another a mind-model you're referencing there, as supposedly being the basis for that self-defeating argument!
Merely using word salad like: 'represents the progression of events and the duration of experiences', is an insufficient basis for realising what you believe is being 'represented'.

There are only two known ways for coming up with a meaning for what 'exists' (physically, or otherwise).. either by asserting mere beliefs, or by using the scientific (objective) method. Both make use of abstractions but only one has a track record of rapidly expanding useful/practical knowledge, making reliable predictions and making sense of our perceptions. It ain't perfect, but its worked out being better for us in the long run than the other way.

Time does not exist without a human mind to perceive it. Time cannot exist without consciousness. It only exists in the human mind.

There is no evidence for what exists outside of the human mind, in order to give meaning to what exists inside the human mind. That whole inside/outside model is completely flawed. There is no inside/outside the human mind, unless you just use a belief to imagine there is an 'outside'.

Did things exist before mankind? Yes of course, but before that there was nobody (a conscience mind) to measure it.

'Things existing before mankind', is a mind model. It is an extrapolation which you started out objecting to, on the basis of being only an abstraction. Your argument has come back full-circle because of the belief in that we are truly capable of 'stepping outside of our minds' (we can't do this, other than just merely believing we can and then holding it as some kind of universal truth .. which I'll reject on a scientific reasoning basis). Cheers.

 

[sjastro]

If mankind don't exist ... how much time has past?

Well lets see.
Age of the universe according to the Planck data of the CMB 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years minus whenever intelligent rational humans appeared.

This leads to another issue the universe is expanding.
In the very early history of the universe billions of years before humans appeared, the universe was performing tricks in the form of inflation to ensure each point in the universe was causally connected to every other point.

In terms of causality, inflation allows for a causal connection between regions of space that would otherwise be out of each other’s light cones due to the rapid expansion. This helps explain the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation across the sky.

This also meant events in the universe were time ordered such as the cause preceding the effect.
No human intervention was required by inventing time.

 

[eclipsenow]

My main hope is that our responsibility for climate change does not turn out to be the explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

Ha ha - yes everything's Fermi paradox this week having just binged "3 Body Problem."

But other world's would have had to have the same kind of fossil fuel build up, the same crazy exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels, etc. Given life and the apparently long periods of time evolution takes - fossil fuels are sort of probable. At least coal. But oil requires very specific geologies to get trapped just so. I forget the exact terms - but the right 'spongy' rock and the right capstone layer to stop it leaking out and held at the right depth and temperature to cook it up for the right amount of time.

Also - even in this world - I wonder if in a hypothetical alternate history a more Lefty international regime that didn't go through the deceptive NeoLib years under Reagan and Thatcher might have started on this problem earlier.

I've had a shift in my thinking in the last few years. I used to despair - mainly because I thought the intermittency of renewables meant we had to go nuclear. I could not believe that nuclear power remains ILLEGAL in Australia when runaway climate change would be so much worse! I used to hate how people would just refer to wind and solar without understanding the maths of how much Overbuild they would require to get through winter weather. But now? Lazard 2023 says W&S are about 1/4 the cost of nuclear, so we CAN afford to Overbuild them. The bug has become the feature! Overbuild may allow some incredible bonuses to society in the fair weather seasons. Now W&S are growing so fast the market is going to BLITZ the poor and compromised Paris agreements. Move over COP - the market has tasted cheap W&S and likes it! The market could be deploying 2 to 3 times the Paris goals by 2030! All I want for Christmas is one terawatt of solar deployed annually

 

[SelfSim]

Well lets see.
Age of the universe according to the Planck data of the CMB 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years minus whenever intelligent rational humans appeared.

This leads to another issue the universe is expanding.
In the very early history of the universe billions of years before humans appeared, the universe was performing tricks in the form of inflation to ensure each point in the universe was causally connected to every other point.

This also meant events in the universe were time ordered such as the cause preceding the effect.
No human intervention was required by inventing time.

Yep .. its (↑) an objective, (observational), model which tests out well against theory .. and the results, (theoretical or empirical), are what justifies science treating it as being objective reality. We can also toss out this term 'physical reality' too (even though I'm also guilty of using the term .. I'm just about convinced that's a philsophical hangover we all have, from days gone past).

 

[eleos1954]

Your opinion is wrong. We certainly can and h ave.

Incredulity is not a form of evidence or argument.

Natural processes (especially volcanoes) are minor compared to human emissions.

We have for a long time.

None. Humans are still emitting net CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere than the year before for 60+ straight years. We've barely started to put a dent in the rate of emission.

Earth doesn't have a limited time, not even humanity. This is about maintaining the ecological conditions our society is built upon.

Not today

Incredulity

sometimes our beliefs are in error

Over fairly recent years there have been "predictions" of this or that regarding climate changes ... (global freezing/global warming) and that we would reach "a critical point" ... these things didn't happen .... so who's to say the C02 thing will happen because of what mankind does or doesn't do.

We have many natural things on earth that could happen that could totally obliterate anything we might do in an attempt to control C02 ... such as frequent volcanic eruptions.

Like I said ... pollution .... we should protect our natural resources for the benefit of mankind but not to the detriment of it by eliminating energy resources that are unable to provide for the masses.

I think we should seriously revisit nuclear energy ... presents itself to be a more viable alternative as far as not emitting pollutants into our atmosphere.

Nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide while operating.

Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms – a process called fission. This generates heat to produce steam, which is used by a turbine generator to generate electricity. Because nuclear power plants do not burn fuel, they do not produce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[eclipsenow]

Over fairly recent years there have been "predictions" of this or that regarding climate changes ... (global freezing/global warming) and that we would reach "a critical point"

What do you think you are talking about? Can you please quote a source? From everything I read we are right on track in terms of climate predictions at least. If anything - the IPCC is marginally too conservative. The reality is proving a little worse than predicted. Not that I side with the climate doomers that insist we've only got 10 years until extinction or anything silly like that. (It's been documented that fossil fuel companies actually sponsor such groups as they help demotivate climate action by instilling a sense of hopelessness!)

... these things didn't happen

Again - what on earth are you talking about?

We have many natural things on earth that could happen that could totally obliterate anything we might do in an attempt to control C02 ... such as frequent volcanic eruptions.

Please provide evidence of any OTHER thing other than the example you cite.
Now provide evidence for your assertions about scientific reasons to expect a massive uptick in worldwide volcanism.
It appears your 'many natural things' are actually zero.

Like I said ... pollution .... we should protect our natural resources for the benefit of mankind but not to the detriment of it by eliminating energy resources that are unable to provide for the masses.

If you're a Christian you also have a responsibility to honour the fact that this is not our world, given to us for the benefit of mankind. It's God's world. He loves us and it, and wants us to steward it well to his glory and the protection of the biosphere and life forms he made (through a long and fascinating journey - but that's a whole other story.)

I think we should seriously revisit nuclear energy ... presents itself to be a more viable alternative as far as not emitting pollutants into our atmosphere.

I've been a passionate nuclear advocate here in Australia since about 2010 when some kind physicists took their time to explain it to me. But it remains illegal in Australia. Renewables are now so much cheaper than nuclear (1/4 cost - Lazard 2023) that we can overbuild them to deal with seasonal variation and weather. Backup with cheap sodium batteries for a few hours and then switch to off-river pumped hydro for a few days. Done! They're doubling every 4 years. The hardest part? Getting the HVDC powerlines built where we need them to go for the super-grid. But for many - HVDC powerlines are VASTLY less controversial than a nuclear power plant next door - even though COAL is FAR DEADLIER THAN NUCLEAR!

But again - it's the expense.
Renewables can do the job far cheaper - and are growing exponentially.

This article wonders if we're going to see 3 TERAWATTS annually by 2030! That’s 2 to 3 times the Paris goals. All I want for Christmas is one terawatt of solar deployed annually

 

[sjastro]

Incredulity

sometimes our beliefs are in error

Over fairly recent years there have been "predictions" of this or that regarding climate changes ... (global freezing/global warming) and that we would reach "a critical point" ... these things didn't happen .... so who's to say the C02 thing will happen because of what mankind does or doesn't do.

So what do the actual models tell us regarding predictions vs observations.
Climate models can make both hindcasts and forecasts, in 2004 the 20 year forecast was.

​

It seems climate models using relatively primitive supercomputers in 2004 got the predictions right.
These days the climate models are expected to be even more accurate as supercomputers are far more powerful and can process more data.

We have many natural things on earth that could happen that could totally obliterate anything we might do in an attempt to control C02 ... such as frequent volcanic eruptions.

Recall in a previous post lower stratosphere cooling is the fingerprint for AGW, it is also a region which is sensitive to volcanic eruptions.

​

Notice anything in the data?
Major volcanic eruptions which had a global impact in 1961, 1983, and 1991 only temporarily reversed lower stratospheric cooling due to AGW.
It clearly indicates humans are the dominant factor, volcanic eruptions are only provide short term effects.

Like I said ... pollution .... we should protect our natural resources for the benefit of mankind but not to the detriment of it by eliminating energy resources that are unable to provide for the masses.

One of the ironies in the burning of fossil fuels is that pollution in the form of particulate matter and sulfate aerosols has a negative feedback on global warming by scattering solar radiation in the atmosphere which for decades masked the warming effects due to CO₂.
The reduction of these pollution levels was commenced decades before there were any policies let alone effort to reduce CO₂ levels and has been successful at the cost exposing the full effects of global warming due to CO₂.