Checkout the science anytime

@checkoutanytime says [quote]we dont have a choice.[/quote]
Ah, but we DO have a choice. Humans have been accidentally modifying the climate for the past 100+ years. We can now modify it intentionally. A simple case of human climate modification and repair is the ozone hole.

The antarctic ozone hole is a case that demonstrates both humanity's ability to affect the atmosphere and humanity's ability to fix the damage we've done. The ozone hole began shrinking when we reduced CFC outputs by over 99%.

[quote]NASA began measuring Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer by satellite in 1979. By the time the Montreal Protocol went into effect in 1989, ozone concentrations (in Dobson units) had declined significantly over the Antarctic, enlarging the ozone hole. [/quote]

The American Chemical Society says:
[quote] [b]Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion[/b]
A National Historic Chemical Landmark
. . .
“When we realized there was a very effective chain reaction, that changed the CFC investigation from an interesting scientific problem to one that had major environmental consequences,” Rowland told Chemical & Engineering News in an extensive interview in 2007. “You don’t often get many chills down your back when you look at scientific results,” he added, but that had been one of those moments.[/quote]
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html

Want more?
[quote]Research studies in the laboratory show that chlorine (Cl) reacts very rapidly with ozone. They also show that the reactive chemical chlorine monoxide (ClO) formed in that reaction can undergo further processes that regenerate the original chlorine, allowing the sequence to be repeated very many times (a chain reaction). Similar reactions also take place between bromine and ozone.

But do these ozone-destroying reactions occur in the "real world"? All the accumulated scientific experience demonstrates that the same chemical reactions do take place in nature. Many other reactions (including those of other chemical species) are often also taking place simultaneously in the stratosphere. This makes the connections among the changes difficult to untangle. Nevertheless, whenever chlorine (or bromine) and ozone are found together in the stratosphere, the ozone-destroying reactions are taking place.

Sometimes a small number of chemical reactions are so dominant in the natural circumstance that the connections are almost as clear as in laboratory experiments. Such a situation occurs in the Antarctic stratosphere during the springtime formation of the ozone hole. Independent measurements made by instruments from the ground and from balloons, aircraft, and satellites have provided a detailed understanding of the chemical reactions in the Antarctic stratosphere. Large areas reach temperatures so low (less than 80°C, or 112°F) that stratospheric clouds form, which is a rare occurrence, except during the polar winters. These polar stratospheric clouds allow chemical reactions that transform chlorine species from forms that do not cause ozone depletion into forms that do cause ozone depletion. Among the latter is chlorine monoxide, which initiates ozone destruction in the presence of sunlight. The amount of reactive chlorine in such regions is therefore much higher than that observed in the middle latitudes, which leads to much faster chemical ozone destruction. The chemical reactions occurring in the presence of these clouds are now well understood from studies under laboratory conditions that mimic those found naturally in the atmosphere.[/quote]

@checkoutanytime asks [quote]how do CO2 levels have anything to do with climate change? [/quote] Gosh, I'm SO GLAD you asked me that!! Here's a re-post of an answer I wrote earlier to that question.

[quote]but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.[/quote] It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases
idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html

[quote] In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant[/quote] Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data.
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html

[quote] Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?[/quote]
Nope, not 50 years, 800,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from lake & sea floor sediments.
https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores
CO2 & methane & temp data

Here's [i]where[/i] the various data sets were collected:

The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.

[quote] Where does the money for climate research come from?[/quote]
Fair question - it comes mostly from the National Science Foundation. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 [i]billion[/i] per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe [i]none[/i] of that money goes to propaganda, are you?

Just to clarify the straw man argument raised here by checkout, nobody is saying global warming will "doom us" or kill off humans or anything like that. That's a fake argument he's countering.

The concern about global warming is simply that it could flood low lying seaside cities where hundreds of millions of people live. And nothing in that nature article says the "stabilizing feedback" mechanism will save Miami or Houston or New York or New Orleans.

Reversing global warming is about saving $100 trillion or so worth of infrastructure and buildings around the planet. That's all. Myself, I'm not ready to write off all those cities.

8000 years of sea levels

[i]Average sea level rise since 1880[/i]
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/global-sea-level-rise

[i]Local sea level rise, mm/year, as measured by GPS[/i]

It also says:
[quote]Interestingly, Arnscheidt and Rothman discovered that the data did not show any stabilizing feedbacks on longer timescales.[/quote]

The article also doesn't say what temperature the supposed 'stabilizing response' is aiming at, perhaps it would be suitable for the dinosaurs, in the mid 30s Celsius all over. Not so good for us.

must be working for Buffalo, they are about to get hit with six feet of snow...... and theres no need for anybody to respond to this with 48 pages of graphs. LOL save your time and get a hobby.

now another ice age is ending on the planet. warming is a normal process.

We definitely are all doomed.