Balance of nature: global warming related to CO2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, January 09, 2025, 10:07 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: presented to balance the hype about global warming. […] How much should we interfere with the processes?

dhw: Is global warming being “hyped”? Lay people like myself can only make judgements in accordance with the information we are given.Here, then, is the contrary view to David’s. No matter what website you consult, there is unanimity that the Earth's temperature is rising. One website says that the “average is 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade.” The ice-age article shows that climate changes may have taken millions of years, but if the current rate of warming is maintained, it will take 50 years for every 1 degree rise. And if the rate continues to increase as it is now doing, then of course it will take even fewer years. Here is another quote:

“Humans need to sweat to survive in warm conditions, and that's only possible if the combination of temperature and humidity – known as the wet-bulb temperature – stays below around 35°C. According to a 2012 study by scientists at MIT, this limit could be reached globally if our planet warms by around 12°C.”

Every rise will affect the environment, and the melting of the glaciers is one obvious and extremely dangerous warning sign. Human activity is generally recognized as being the cause of this rapid acceleration. Climate changes that took Nature millions of years may only require a few decades if action is not taken now. We are already “interfering with the processes”. That seems to be the cause of the problem.

DAVID: The bold is the problem. You want force-fed 'facts'. Read Watts Up With That website and learn from weather/climate experts.

You are illustrating the point made by my bold! You and I are lay people. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who runs a popular anti climate change blog, and you accept his views. I don’t know what you mean by “force-fed facts”. Are you then saying that all the other “experts” who present us with facts supporting climate change are liars, charlatans, ignoramuses? Laymen like us are in no position to know the truth if the so-called experts disagree among themselves. You have stated categorically that global warming is hype. I have presented the contrary view, although I must admit that I do take it very seriously indeed.

This, however, is just one of the threats to life on earth. You ask "How much should we interfere with the processes?" I would suggest it would be far more pertinent to demand that we stop interfering with the processes. It is we humans who are polluting our rivers and oceans, poisoning our air and our food, endangering or killing off species after species...
I think you will agree.