Climate Change Question: When did you first learn about climate change??

I think humans are responsible for maybe 15% of the climate change, the others is inevitable.

@bespredel88 said in #52:

I think humans are responsible for maybe 15% of the climate change, the others is inevitable.
Just as false as denying the whole climate crisis.

@asneiras said in #50:

They do, not at a global level but on a more local level and in case the species keeps on multiplying and expanding unchecked the consequence would be obvious.
How in the name of climate change can you LOCALLY change the climate without GLOBALLY CHANGING IT????

@bespredel88 said in #52:

I think humans are responsible for maybe 15% of the climate change, the others is inevitable.

Well, you have been misinformed (no judgement here, just an observation, I don't blame you).

According to [1] humans are estimated to have been responsible for 110% (most likely) of warming (albeit with rather large uncertainties ranging from 72% to 146%).
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

You might (understandably) ask: What even means "responsible for more than 100% of warming"??!
Well, it basically means that natural forcings would have lead to a slight cooling, but that human activities (mainly the net emission of well-mixed greenhouse gasses) reversed that trend into a warming trend.

The entire idea that natural processes could produce extreme warming such as we have seen in the past century without some kind of noticeable cataclysmic event is ill-thought-out. The classic "the climate has always changed" gotcha argument just doesn't hold up to any closer scrutiny. Yes, the climate has always changed. But it has done so extremely slowly. The drastic rate of change we experience now is neither natural nor inevitable.

I wonder whether or not people who say "the climate has always changed" or "CO_2 levels have always changed" actually look at diagrams like these [2] and go "Well, that looks natural to me!".
[2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/doesnt-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-come-natural-sources

The diagram in [2] details the natural glacial-interglacial cycle of carbon dioxide concentration over the past 800,000 years (equivalent to 32,000 human generations, or 175 times recorded history, more than two times longer than modern humans have existed on this planet which is only about 315,000 years) as well as the anthropogenic uptick (coloured in yellow) on the very right.
It shows quite clearly, that

• glacial periods and interglacials usually last for ≈20,000 years (with 10,000 to 15,000 years of relatively stable temperatures and CO_2 concentrations)
• carbon dioxide concentrations naturally ranged from 180-200 ppm (parts per million) during glacial periods and from 260-300 ppm during interglacials (a difference of about 100 ppm)
• the transition from a glacial period to a warm period (interglacial) took thousands of years
• we are currently at the beginning to midpoint of an interglacial
• the concentration of CO_2 has risen from ≈180 ppm during the last glacial period a few thousand years ago to a staggering 410 ppm today (a difference of 230 ppm, more than twice the typical value).

Furthermore modern data [3] shows that carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere has increased by 105 ppm in the last 63 years (from 313 ppm in 1958 to 418 ppm in 2021) alone. That's more than the typical increase due to the transition between a glacial period and an interglacial (which takes thousands of years) in but a fraction of the time; and we already are in a (natural) interglacial (=warm period).
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

CO_2 concentrations would not have changed nearly as dramatically in the past 200-300 years or so (since the industrial revolution) if humanity hadn't literally taken millions of years of carbon uptake by plants and returned it to the atmosphere in such a short period of time.

I'll leave you with an excellent and concise video explaining global warming in less than three minutes (from a basic atmospheric physics standpoint): [4]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jh4xRAjs78

@LordSupremeChess said in #54:

How in the name of climate change can you LOCALLY change the climate without GLOBALLY CHANGING IT????

a smaller change will be assimilated, for example, a fungus eats a particular plant that was responsible for creating humidity in some random place. That local spot dries up slowly, but it won't affect places farther away.

@Thalassokrator said in #55:

Well, you have been misinformed (no judgement here, just an observation, I don't blame you).

According to [1] humans are estimated to have been responsible for 110% (most likely) of warming (albeit with rather large uncertainties ranging from 72% to 146%).
[1] www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

You might (understandably) ask: What even means "responsible for more than 100% of warming"??!
Well, it basically means that natural forcings would have lead to a slight cooling, but that human activities (mainly the net emission of well-mixed greenhouse gasses) reversed that trend into a warming trend.

The entire idea that natural processes could produce extreme warming such as we have seen in the past century without some kind of noticeable cataclysmic event is ill-thought-out. The classic "the climate has always changed" gotcha argument just doesn't hold up to any closer scrutiny. Yes, the climate has always changed. But it has done so extremely slowly. The drastic rate of change we experience now is neither natural nor inevitable.

I wonder whether or not people who say "the climate has always changed" or "CO_2 levels have always changed" actually look at diagrams like these [2] and go "Well, that looks natural to me!".
[2] www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/doesnt-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-come-natural-sources

The diagram in [2] details the natural glacial-interglacial cycle of carbon dioxide concentration over the past 800,000 years (equivalent to 32,000 human generations, or 175 times recorded history, more than two times longer than modern humans have existed on this planet which is only about 315,000 years) as well as the anthropogenic uptick (coloured in yellow) on the very right.
It shows quite clearly, that

• glacial periods and interglacials usually last for ≈20,000 years (with 10,000 to 15,000 years of relatively stable temperatures and CO_2 concentrations)
• carbon dioxide concentrations naturally ranged from 180-200 ppm (parts per million) during glacial periods and from 260-300 ppm during interglacials (a difference of about 100 ppm)
• the transition from a glacial period to a warm period (interglacial) took thousands of years
• we are currently at the beginning to midpoint of an interglacial
• the concentration of CO_2 has risen from ≈180 ppm during the last glacial period a few thousand years ago to a staggering 410 ppm today (a difference of 230 ppm, more than twice the typical value).

Furthermore modern data [3] shows that carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere has increased by 105 ppm in the last 63 years (from 313 ppm in 1958 to 418 ppm in 2021) alone. That's more than the typical increase due to the transition between a glacial period and an interglacial (which takes thousands of years) in but a fraction of the time; and we already are in a (natural) interglacial (=warm period).
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

CO_2 concentrations would not have changed nearly as dramatically in the past 200-300 years or so (since the industrial revolution) if humanity hadn't literally taken millions of years of carbon uptake by plants and returned it to the atmosphere in such a short period of time.

I'll leave you with an excellent and concise video explaining global warming in less than three minutes (from a basic atmospheric physics standpoint): [4]
Well, for me Climate Changing is like talking about God: everybody talks about him, but no one has seen him in real life.

@bespredel88 said in #57:

Well, for me Climate Changing is like talking about God: everybody talks about him, but no one has seen him in real life.
Same for you.

But I would like my country , Russia, become a bit warmer :)

@bespredel88 said in #57:

Well, for me Climate Changing is like talking about God: everybody talks about him, but no one has seen him in real life.

Well, if you actually take a look at the observable data (like the Keeling Curve and tens of thousands of scientific papers from the last few decades), you'll have to agree that Climate Change is very much visible in real life. It's a phenomenon that is directly observable.

But the point is, you have to be willing to take a look in order to see something.

@Thalassokrator said in #55:

Well, you have been misinformed (no judgement here, just an observation, I don't blame you).

According to [1] humans are estimated to have been responsible for 110% (most likely) of warming (albeit with rather large uncertainties ranging from 72% to 146%).
[1] www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

You might (understandably) ask: What even means "responsible for more than 100% of warming"??!
Well, it basically means that natural forcings would have lead to a slight cooling, but that human activities (mainly the net emission of well-mixed greenhouse gasses) reversed that trend into a warming trend.

The entire idea that natural processes could produce extreme warming such as we have seen in the past century without some kind of noticeable cataclysmic event is ill-thought-out. The classic "the climate has always changed" gotcha argument just doesn't hold up to any closer scrutiny. Yes, the climate has always changed. But it has done so extremely slowly. The drastic rate of change we experience now is neither natural nor inevitable.

I wonder whether or not people who say "the climate has always changed" or "CO_2 levels have always changed" actually look at diagrams like these [2] and go "Well, that looks natural to me!".
[2] www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/doesnt-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-come-natural-sources

The diagram in [2] details the natural glacial-interglacial cycle of carbon dioxide concentration over the past 800,000 years (equivalent to 32,000 human generations, or 175 times recorded history, more than two times longer than modern humans have existed on this planet which is only about 315,000 years) as well as the anthropogenic uptick (coloured in yellow) on the very right.
It shows quite clearly, that

• glacial periods and interglacials usually last for ≈20,000 years (with 10,000 to 15,000 years of relatively stable temperatures and CO_2 concentrations)
• carbon dioxide concentrations naturally ranged from 180-200 ppm (parts per million) during glacial periods and from 260-300 ppm during interglacials (a difference of about 100 ppm)
• the transition from a glacial period to a warm period (interglacial) took thousands of years
• we are currently at the beginning to midpoint of an interglacial
• the concentration of CO_2 has risen from ≈180 ppm during the last glacial period a few thousand years ago to a staggering 410 ppm today (a difference of 230 ppm, more than twice the typical value).

Furthermore modern data [3] shows that carbon dioxide concentration in Earth's atmosphere has increased by 105 ppm in the last 63 years (from 313 ppm in 1958 to 418 ppm in 2021) alone. That's more than the typical increase due to the transition between a glacial period and an interglacial (which takes thousands of years) in but a fraction of the time; and we already are in a (natural) interglacial (=warm period).
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

CO_2 concentrations would not have changed nearly as dramatically in the past 200-300 years or so (since the industrial revolution) if humanity hadn't literally taken millions of years of carbon uptake by plants and returned it to the atmosphere in such a short period of time.

I'll leave you with an excellent and concise video explaining global warming in less than three minutes (from a basic atmospheric physics standpoint): [4]

Surely he is just giving a logical estimate and seems quite accurate.
All of these studies have value and many of them are correct, only the interpretation that "we" give them is not exactly correct.

"Yes, the weather has always changed. But it has changed very slowly"

This depends on your slow definition, at the peak of any event things seems to change at a faster pace.