I guess we also spend a fair bit on moving to renewables up here - Finland achieved energy self sufficiency last year thanks to a good combination of nuclear + solar + hydro. If I were an ideologue in either direction I'd probably say "that's the real reason I moved" or "can't believe they're waiting my tax money on this", but I'm not, I'm just a guy who likes hedging his bets. The nuclear is especially nice because cheap electricity is the true backbone of society, and we've seen the market prices go straight up _negative_ a few times due to overproduction.
Self recommending! Come to Finland and help us build a stronger democracy, whatever that means to you.
You. Literally YOU. Can trivially measure the impact of different gases on temperature.
Telling the difference between natural and human produced is probably not doable by you personally, however, human burned pollution tends to have different atomic markers from naturally occurring. We have mandatory pollution reporting. We can do basic maths to find reasonably close numbers to how much of the pollution is natural and how much is from us.
With regard to “the prediction models are always wrong” fake news propaganda bullshit:
They are always wrong in a way that’s worse for us by underestimating the bad impacts. Every time we improve the models, the outcomes are worse even faster than the models predict, and we have to find why.
We can measure anecdotaly that temperature is slightly rising. The reason why is it happening and happend in history multiple times is topic for debate that we can explore.
However your tone is not open for debate and use exactly same words as those you fight against.
You are pretending that our scientific knowledge is at 1600 levels to come to your insane conclusions.
You claim that I’m not open for debate, but it’s actually just that there is no debate here. You’re a just printing demonstrable lies on to the internet, for what?
> How do you know?
posed in ignorance (perhaps genuine ignorance, perhaps feigned) above, we (humans) have been measuring gas properties in isolation for 200 years (and more) and have been specifically measuring (and storing as bottled samples) atmospheric gas composition since the start of the Cold War.. seventy odd years or so now.
Much of our high quality environmental data comes from cold war research - ocean tempretures were first mapped at large scale by Scripps in order to use thermoclines to pinpoint submarines and other sounds in water.
In the civilian arena, Cape Grim is of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim_Air_Archive
https://researchdata.edu.au/cape-grim-air-archive/678420
This and other global references informs us about the changing atmospheric makeup and other experiments inform us about the increase in trapped heat from incoming solar radiation.
Before about 1940, the most common method for measuring sea surface temperature was to throw a bucket attached to a rope overboard from a ship, haul it back up, and read the water temperature. The method was far from perfect. Depending on the air temperature, the water temperature could change as the bucket was pulled from the water. (1)
In the late 1970s ... tracking what was happening to Earth temperatures was at a relatively primitive state. Much of the relevant weather station data had not been digitized and what had been, was not widely available. Previous estimates of temperature changes ... had focused on the northern hemisphere, but that obviously missed half the planet. (2) interactive map: (3)
There is analysis showing differences in model temperature variation models and actual data from balloons and satellites since 1979. (4)
Those are few examples how our ability to measure things changes with our developing knowledge.
Rising temperatures is not new phenomena. Greenland ice core project (5) showing that there was about 25 dramatic climate changes in history. Its called Dansgaard–Oeschger event. (6), (7) and shows that for example during Younger Dryas (8) there was dramatic temperature decline and increase in few decades.
Making predictions on data since 70's are fragile and should be constantly reanalyzed.
(1) https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-r...
(2) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
(3) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/
(4) https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/christytest...
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_eve...
(7) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20He...
Yet they, in near majority, still stand behind the broad predictions of future climate change - even being aware of the work of Smale and Lorenz .. perhaps it's that 40+ year old understanding of stability, robustness, and the Dzhanibekov effect in which the broad arc of motion is entirely predictable despite wobbles on a minor axis or two.
Normalisation and may other adjustments to data sets are stock in trade operations across all the observational sciences- geophysical mineral exploration, radiometric surveying, radio astronomy, distributed signal aquisition, etc. etc. etc. You'll note for example that NASA et al are out in front about doing such things.
Predictions of trains headed for derailment based on speed, mass, and topography are not refuted by an inability to predict where the centrepiece vase in the dining car comes to rest.
From history we know, how terrified population is easier to manipulate by those who offer easy solutions.
The physics is sound. The grasp of physics many dissenters have is not.