Diablog is about the good things in life. And controversy.
An excellent example was given by our dear commentator Phil here, responding to the climate change skeptic Glynsky.
Following are a few more facts.
The Greenhouse effect isn’t new or just fashionable. It was (quote) “argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.”
Half a degree more or less within a time frame of 15 years is irrelevant, as Phil showed nicely. But 90% of the additional warmth is stored in the oceans. And the oceans get warmer continuously. Check the shrinking polar ice caps, if in doubt.
What is questionable or in doubt then? How drastic the consequences of man-made addition to the climate change will be.
How much more will the sea level rise? Will places like NYC, Tokyo and Mumbai be under water? Where would the hundreds of millions of people, living on a coast today, migrate to?
What other consequences will we see and how drastic? More droughts, storms, heat waves, crop shortfalls? In 2010 the heat wave forced Russia to stop export of wheat. We do not need more of that, do we?
For more on the issue, I recommend the Wikipedia page Global warming controversy, and, of course, the corresponding “talk” page at Wikipedia, where the controversy over the controversy is taking place.