Yes, it has. Quite a bit, in fact.
If you mean "climate change is an existential threat to all humanity and all organisms," you are correct... and despite the hyperbolic mischaracterizations of the actual science by the deniers, no one makes such extreme claims.
Or, they have spent decades trying to head off disasters, which are starting to happen.
[/FONT]
Yes, it has. Quite a bit, in fact.
There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; there is no question that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was stable for thousands of years; there is no question that human actions have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere; there is no question that atmospheric, ocean and land surface temperatures have increased.
We have tons of evidence that CFCs damaged the ozone, and that banning CFCs has led to a slow recovery:
In fact, here's about 1500 pages summarizing the scientific evidence of climate change, circa 2013. Have fun with that.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
If you mean "climate change is an existential threat to all humanity and all organisms," you are correct... and despite the hyperbolic mischaracterizations of the actual science by the deniers, no one makes such extreme claims.
If you mean "climate change is already making storms worse, floods worse, droughts more frequent and more intense, drying out forests which leads to larger and hotter fires, reducing glacial extent which in turn reduces water supplies and further exacerbates drought" and so on, then you are incorrect. All of this is happening, and it's going to get worse.
We should also keep in mind that 40% of the world's population live in coastal areas, which will see some of the biggest impacts (like we're seeing with Florence right now), and a lot of those people are poor. Climate change won't wipe out humanity, but it is going to cause a lot of damage.
Or, they have spent decades trying to head off disasters, which are starting to happen.
We saw it this summer, with heat waves breaking records and covering areas where heat waves were unheard of (by the way, heat waves kill more people than any other natural disaster). We see it with the shrinking, and possible disappearance, of summer ice in the Arctic. We see it with escalating ice mass losses in Greenland. And we saw it in Harvey, and Maria, and Florence, and lots of other named storms: They are larger, slower, wetter, more energetic, higher category for longer, and more damaging, because of climate change.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Storms are neither more frequent nor more intense.
[FONT=&]
The Washington Post’s Slander on Hurricanes and Climate Change
[FONT=&]By James D. Agresti The Washington Post editorial board has accused President Trump of being “complicit” in Hurricane Florence, because “he plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks” of “extreme weather,” and “he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks.” Such weather, they say, is fueled by manmade global warming that creates “unusually…
[/FONT]
3 days ago September 16, 2018 in Climate News.
[FONT="]Likewise, the [URL="https://lab.weathermodels.com/tropical/"]datasets[/URL] graphed below show that the global number and intensity of cyclones, hurricanes, and major hurricanes have been roughly level for the past four-to-five decades. These data were originally published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2011 and updated this year:[/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/clip_image0021.jpg"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_major_freq.png"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_running_ace.png"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="]Records of Atlantic hurricanes—which stretch back for more than a century—also show stagnant trends. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory [URL="https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/"]recently assessed[/URL] these data and concluded that “the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”[/FONT]
Storms are neither more frequent nor more intense.
[FONT=&]
The Washington Post’s Slander on Hurricanes and Climate Change
[FONT=&]By James D. Agresti The Washington Post editorial board has accused President Trump of being “complicit” in Hurricane Florence, because “he plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks” of “extreme weather,” and “he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks.” Such weather, they say, is fueled by manmade global warming that creates “unusually…
[/FONT]
3 days ago September 16, 2018 in Climate News.
[FONT="]Likewise, the [URL="https://lab.weathermodels.com/tropical/"]datasets[/URL] graphed below show that the global number and intensity of cyclones, hurricanes, and major hurricanes have been roughly level for the past four-to-five decades. These data were originally published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2011 and updated this year:[/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/clip_image0021.jpg"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_major_freq.png"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_running_ace.png"][/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="]Records of Atlantic hurricanes—which stretch back for more than a century—also show stagnant trends. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory [URL="https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/"]recently assessed[/URL] these data and concluded that “the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”[/FONT]
So, in other words, "climate change" is "climate change"... That's exactly my point...
Yes there is... I question that...
There is no such thing as GHGs... And by "pre-industrial eras", I suppose you mean from the beginning of human history until sometime before the 1760s? The problem is that sets of time are arbitrarily chosen to show the desired agenda-driven results for "climate change"...
So, in other words, "climate change" is "climate change"... Exactly my point...
What period of time? Why is that period of time so special compared to other periods of time? How do we know that that period of time is "normal" when compared to all of past time?
:roll:
:roll:
You deny it. That's not the same thing.
Please. There is no rational doubt whatsoever that gases trap heat in the atmosphere.
*bzzt* wrong. It refers to the Holocene prior to 1750 (i.e. roughly 11,000 BCE to 1750), which was a fairly stable period. In fact, temperatures were cooling slightly between 3000 BCE to 1750, when they went through the roof.
