Climate Problems: Debating the Science Behind It

[hagopbul]

Hello All :

Reading about climate problems , and noticed that there is some deniers or people who do not convinced with the climate problem scientific ideas ( or theories ) may i ask what scientific claims they use to refute the current scientific explanation for the climate problems ?

is really possible that in 70 years more or less there is cities will be not on the map ? or in few hundred years

please forgive my ignorant as i dont know a lot about atmospheric science , just that Co2 vibrations are in the infrared range but the concentration of Co2 is in particles per millions which look small although the Avogadro number suggest that this number is not that small the atmosphere is taking a space in less than 100 of cubic kilometers

Best Regards
Hagop

 

[PeroK]

The basic principles of climate change and greenhouse gases have been well understood since at least the 1980s. If you search online you should find a video of Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in the 1980s.

Serious deniers of climate change have typically cited the uncertainty of the precise changes and rate of change. Uncertainty, however, goes both ways. For every percentage probability that things will be less bad than the average prediction, there is a probability that things will be worse or change faster than predicted.

This seems to be what is currently causing the extreme concern. That things could change faster than anyone dared predict.

Precisely how fast things change and how damaging or catastrophic this is to the planet's ability to sustain 8 billion human beings is uncertain. But, the argument that we need do nothing and that significant climate change may not happen now looks less credible than ever.

 

[JT Smith]

The basic principles of climate change and greenhouse gases have been well understood since at least the 1980s. If you search online you should find a video of Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in the 1980s.

Did you transpose two of those digits? Surely Arrhenius can be credited as understanding the basic principles in the 1890s.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation. This thread is misplaced in GD, and does not appear to follow the GW/CC rules in the Earth forum:

Before posting anything, please review the Physics Forums Global Guidelines.

CC/GW threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of weather, climatology, and global warming that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and well-established textbooks.

Threads such "Is global warming real" or "Are humans the cause of global warming" are too broad and are subject to being locked. We want to encourage questions about specific research, news and events involved with climate science.

Due to the contentious nature of the subject of climate change, the following cannot be used as source material:

• internet blogs
• unpublished papers
• papers published in a small number of excluded journals (see below)

This forum may not be used to propose new ideas or personal theories. All threads of this nature that are started in this forum will be removed by Mentors.

Threads that discuss anything other than the science of weather, climatology, and global warming may be locked or moved to a more appropriate forum, at the discretion of the Mentors.

Threads on the policy / political aspects of climate change are forbidden.

Articles published in a small number of supposedly peer-reviewed journals are not acceptable in this forum. These journals include:

• Energy and Environment
• Pattern Recognition in Physics

This topic is under probation. It will be banned again if discussion isn't civil and well intentioned.
​

 

[berkeman]

Thread moved to the Earth Sciences forum, and it will remain locked since it does not follow the current PF rules for CC/GW threads.