Best answer: I don't believe saturation is allowed in this context. The relationship between concentration and heat trapping ability of CO2 is logarithmic, meaning that it traps heat in equal increments for every doubling of concentration, somewhere around 1.8 C. So doubling the CO2 concentration from 20 to 40 ppm has the same effect as an increase from 200 to 400 ppm or 400 to 800 ppm. So the effect of extra CO2 diminishes with concentration, but there will always be an effect.

I have been dumping 5 big bottles of motor oil everyday for these past 3 years. Should I dump even more? Should I light all the oil? WHAT DO I DO

Best answer: They have shifted their energy portfolio to other fuels and have decommissioned coal-fire power plants or have converted them to natural gas. Just like in the USA.

Best answer: The Sunderbans is the largest Mangrove forest in the world, covering 4000 square miles, and is recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Comprising 54 small islands and with an average elevation of just 7.5 meters above sea level, this lone natural habitat for endangered tigers and dolphins (among many other species) is very vulnerable to increasing temperatures, melting glaciers, rising seas, intensifying weather events, worsening droughts and longer wildfire seasons. To add to these natural threats, the Sunderbans forest is also threatened by increasing human encroachment and illegal logging, hunting and fishing. Although many complaints have been lodged with forest officials, locals point to a growing population and the lack of economic opportunity that drives them to seek a livelihood from the forest. This problem has proven particularly difficult to resolve, and the Sunderbans forest has continued to suffer in the absence of a coherent recovery plan.

Often called the planet’s green lung, the Amazon rainforest is a region that spans across 8 countries and contains 4 billion acres of dense forests and half of the planet’s remaining tropical forests. The forests contain 90-140 billion metric tonnes of carbon, which are an invaluable aid in stabilizing the local as well as global climates. This vital ecosystem has been adversely affected by human activities such as deforestation, construction of dams, roads and unregulated extraction of natural resources. As a result, forestland that is about twice the size of France has been destroyed in the past 40 years alone. Leading organizations of the world such as Green Peace and WWF are now working with the regional governments for the protection of these endangered rainforests.

Did it spoil their report that climate change is man made https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/10/u...

https://www.cfact.org/2017/08/18/energy-...

https://www.thegwpf.com/the-strange-rise...

With presently available solar panel technology, energy storage technology, transmission technology, et cetera, about what fraction of US energy needs could be met just by putting solar panels on every roof that was not being used for some other significant purpose, solar shade over every large parking lot, and otherwise putting solar panels on already-disturbed areas such that we were not significantly impeding any other use of the area? Obviously, ballpark figures are fine. Not trying to say this is the absolute best way to handle the nation's energy needs, just trying to counter the usual "skeptic" specter of using up large sections of land with solar power farms or not having enough energy or whatever.

Best answer: Yes.

Deniers and the generally scientifically illiterate can be readily identified by their ignorance of the scienitific meanings of "law", "theory", and "consensus."

In science, consensus is driven by the evidence.

Everything in science is about consensus. Without consensus, the scientific method does not work and scientific knowledge would stay the same without ever advancing. Gravity became part of science by scientific consensus; evolution became part of science by scientific consensus; atomic theory became part of science by scientific consensus; and quantum mechanics and general relativity became part of science by scientific consensus.

It took 50 years from the time Alfred Wegener proposed plate tectonic theory in 1915 before it was accepted by scientific consensus - a consensus that only formed when sufficient evidence became available. That is how it works for everything in science - and that is the process that led to AGW theory.

Forty years ago, the scientific consensus was sketical of global warming - because there was insufficient evidence. That changed as the quantity and quality of the scientific evidemce changed. The fact that Deneris are ignorant of the history of the science of AGW theory does not mean it did not happen and is not real.

Best answer: Fyfy

So apparently my other post about this was taken down but I'm kind of glad because no one answered the questions that followed the initial ones: Where did you get your sources on climate change? Who funded it? Who researched it? Is it recent or old studies? Have you looked at data supporting climate change? If not then tell me why not, like seriously I wanna know but people have me bullsh*t reasons and explanations just give me an answer.

Best answer: In science, any theory that is supported is considered consensus, and any hypothesis that involves an equation is a 'law' when it is accepted. To be technical though, most people don't know this, but the official definition is 'the theory of gravity' because nothing can ever really be known, and most people just say 'gravity' and forget that it is a theory that can one day be disputed if new evidence were to exist