Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[frigidweirdo]

It would seem to me that if we want to be reality oriented we'd have to conclude that there may or may not be AGW but nothing has been proven. It's all conjecture. Sure, lots of folks point to the surveys that show 110% of the world's scientists all agree w/ AGW but that too is not how we investigate an issue scientifically.

And then beyond that we work with the knowledge that we simply don't know, then change our focus to living in harmony with our world, rather than pushing narratives that aren't real anyway

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is your proof that man DOES NOT impact climate change.

You want me to prove a negative??? Fucking hell.

 

[expat_panama]

And then beyond that we work with the knowledge that we simply don't know, then change our focus to living in harmony with our world, rather than pushing narratives that aren't real anyway

--or at the very least, are supported by very tenuous proofs. A long time ago my family used to argue about this stuff but these days nobody mentions it and we all get along great.

 

[frigidweirdo]

--or at the very least, are supported by very tenuous proofs. A long time ago my family used to argue about this stuff but these days nobody mentions it and we all get along great.

Wouldn't it be great if people were able to use evidence to form arguments. Fact is it seems 90% of voters simple can't.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What is your proof that man DOES NOT impact climate change.

Who said man doesn't have an impact on the weather and climate which is funny because it is the warmist/alarmists who lies about the well-known UHI effects of building and larger cities which strongly elevate temperatures upward.

Large land use changes and those overrated wind power effects wind flows in the region that could promote warming locally.

The reality is that most climate regions are the same for the last 10,000 years as mine has remained unchanged for thousands of years it is still BSk in my region (Koppen climate classification) it was that way in 1964 and still that way today.

 

[EMH]

Greenland is 600 miles from the pole and hence is in ice age.

North America, save Ellesmere Island, is no longer 600 miles from the pole, and hence CAME OUT of ice age during the past million years....

Amazing concept. Land moves towards the pole gets colder. Land moves away from the pole gets warmer...

When you can understand that, let us know

At some point, it ceases to be a debate when one side keeps posting the same lies over and over that are debunked by anyone with an IQ over 10 who reads the thread....


The simple truth is as is. Co2 cannot explain how Greenland froze while North America thawed. Neither can the Sun. And hence some here are completely obsessed with shouting that truth down by any means necessary....


The location of land influenced by tectonic plate movement is responsible for 99% of Earth climate change. Co2 does nothing. Sun is constant.

Anyone with an intellectually credible comment please keep em coming, the above repetition of lies about issues already covered here is pretty lame... and should have MOD attention...

 

[EMH]

You want me to prove a negative??? Fucking hell.

Nobody disputes that man causes URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT in growing urban areas. Urban areas warm as they grow. They are 1-10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped land. MAN does that. Beyond that, there is precisely ZERO evidence of Man affecting "climate." And even with the warming of urban areas, the satellites and balloons show NO WARMING in the atmosphere in the raw data.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nobody disputes that man causes URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT in growing urban areas. Urban areas warm as they grow. They are 1-10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped land. MAN does that. Beyond that, there is precisely ZERO evidence of Man affecting "climate." And even with the warming of urban areas, the satellites and balloons show NO WARMING in the atmosphere in the raw data.

Thing is that there are things we can see and measure and say happen.

And there are things we cannot see, measure and understand.

This is the problem, that people often decide they need to know something, even when they have no evidence, and they will cling to whatever it is.

Like religion, this has just become some people's religion.

 

[themirrorthief]

Thing is that there are things we can see and measure and say happen.

And there are things we cannot see, measure and understand.

This is the problem, that people often decide they need to know something, even when they have no evidence, and they will cling to whatever it is.

Like religion, this has just become some people's religion.

no scientist living or dead has ever proved that climate change is man made...its all manure folks

 

[frigidweirdo]

no scientist living or dead has ever proved that climate change is man made...its all manure folks

Well......

Yes, no one has, or probably will be able to prove that it's man made.

Doesn't mean it's "manure".

It means we don't know something.
Literally you're saying "they don't know something, but they're saying it anyway" and you're doing the same thing.

 

[abu afak]

no scientist living or dead has ever proved that climate change is man made...its all manure folks

Science doesn't really deal in "proof," only math does. (2+2 IS 4)
Science deals in theories affirmed over time by more and more Evidence. (so the consensus percent gets higher)
No one has 'proved'the Big Bang or Evolution either.
Many theories (ie the 2 above) are facts as well.
Not all facts are 'proven' either.'
`

 

[Oddball]

Science doesn't really deal in "proof," only math does. (2+2 IS 4)
Science deals in theories affirmed over time. (so the consensus percent gets higher)
No one has proved the Big Bang or Evolution either.
Many theories (ie the 2 above) are facts as well.
Not all facts are 'proven' either.'
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At some point, it ceases to be a debate when one side keeps posting the same lies over and over that are debunked by anyone with an IQ over 10 who reads the thread....


The simple truth is as is. Co2 cannot explain how Greenland froze while North America thawed. Neither can the Sun. And hence some here are completely obsessed with shouting that truth down by any means necessary....


The location of land influenced by tectonic plate movement is responsible for 99% of Earth climate change. Co2 does nothing. Sun is constant.

Anyone with an intellectually credible comment please keep em coming, the above repetition of lies about issues already covered here is pretty lame... and should have MOD attention...

Did Chicago need to be within 600 miles of the pole to be covered with glaciers?

 

[expat_panama]

Wouldn't it be great if people were able to use evidence to form arguments. Fact is it seems 90% of voters simple can't.

For the longest time I'd had the belief that I could reason w/ folks and we could all search for the truth together, and I came to learn that virtually everyone's got their minds already made up and all they wanted to do was quarrel. iow, it seems that people are stupid, but it isn't that way at all.

Arguably the most evil president America has ever had was FDR, and he powered a despicable political machine to control the U.S. all his life. At the same time the U.S. was a tremendous force for good during WWII and the world owes America a tremendous debt for beating back Fascism, the Nazis, and the Japanese empire. Not only that, but while it may seem that the entire human race is stupid humankind has carried forth an ever-advancing civilization. For thousands of years.

What I see in that is the fact that either people are not that stupid or this is proof we are being guided by a loving and caring Creator.

 

[Crick]

For the longest time I'd had the belief that I could reason w/ folks and we could all search for the truth together, and I came to learn that virtually everyone's got their minds already made up and all they wanted to do was quarrel. iow, it seems that people are stupid, but it isn't that way at all.

Arguably the most evil president America has ever had was FDR, and he powered a despicable political machine to control the U.S. all his life. At the same time the U.S. was a tremendous force for good during WWII and the world owes America a tremendous debt for beating back Fascism, the Nazis, and the Japanese empire. Not only that, but while it may seem that the entire human race is stupid humankind has carried forth an ever-advancing civilization. For thousands of years.

What I see in that is the fact that either people are not that stupid or this is proof we are being guided by a loving and caring Creator.

I prefer the comment in MiB that a person is smart, people are dumb.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is your proof that man DOES NOT impact climate change.

Ours is the usual claim based on treating the evidence in a usual manner ... temperatures have gone up 1ºC in the past 140 years ... where has climate changed? ... we "expect" temperatures to rise another 1ºC in the next 140 years ... where will climate change? ... if both answers above are "no where" ... then climate isn't changing ... what more proof do you need? ...

Let's see your proof that man has a MEASURABLE effect on the weather ... and show your math ... (hint: think "clearcutting") ...

 

[Crick]

Ours is the usual claim based on treating the evidence in a usual manner ... temperatures have gone up 1ºC in the past 140 years ... where has climate changed? ... we "expect" temperatures to rise another 1ºC in the next 140 years ... where will climate change? ... if both answers above are "no where" ... then climate isn't changing ... what more proof do you need? ...

Let's see your proof that man has a MEASURABLE effect on the weather ... and show your math ... (hint: think "clearcutting") ...

From https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47082#:~:text=The AR6 WGI presents current,greater intensity since the 1950s,

Human Influence on Planetary Warming
The question of whether and how human activity, among other potential drivers, has contributed to climate change has been discussed and debated for many years. Scientists have considered many potential natural and human-induced drivers of climate change and have examined these influences for their effect on the current climate using evidence from both historical and geological records. Each version of the WGI report has included a precisely worded assessment of the human role in climate change, which has been monitored by many governments, news media, and civil society organizations around the world. Among the central findings of the AR6 WGI was the following: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.”

The statement is supported by a mechanism of human influence—the increases in well-mixed10 greenhouse gases (GHGs),11 including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halogenated gases (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], and hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]) in the atmosphere: “Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities.” 12 The heat-trapping character of GHGs in the atmosphere is one of their known physical properties.13

The AR6 WGI statement on human influence on warming differs from the earlier assessment of human influence included in the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),14 which states that anthropogenic GHGs (i.e., those emitted through human activity) “are extremely likely15 to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” 16

Currently Observed Climate Changes
AR6 WGI states that from about 1750 to the present, 24 “Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” 25 AR6 WGI presents numerous changes observable in data obtained from monitoring of the climate and climate-sensitive aspects of the earth system. The report identifies where climate-related changes are detectable, and with some detectable changes, the report assesses the likelihoods that a particular change is attributable to human influence. AR6 WGI states varying levels of confidence in being able to attribute observed changes to human influence. Further, there are varying levels of certainty about whether particular changes are influenced by human activity, and these are also reported explicitly.26 The changes that are observed are not uniform with respect to their extent, the direction of the change, or the regional character of the change. As illustrated in the following quotation, the AR6 WGI concludes that changes in extremes of hot and cold are virtually certain to have occurred: It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that humaninduced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system.27 One manifestation of large-scale regional differences in the results of climate change is the observed quantity and extent of polar sea ice. Seasonal Arctic sea ice has decreased since 1979, a trend that is very likely to have been human induced, while seasonal Antarctic sea ice has remained unchanged in the same period.28 Retreat of glaciers is a consistent global phenomenon across many regions and assessed as very likely to have been influenced by human activity. The warming of the upper ocean since the 1970s is a globally consistent trend that is virtually certain and for which AR6 WGI states human influence to be extremely likely:29 “ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010.”30

AR6 WGI states that there have likely been changes in the occurrence of major tropical cyclones, but the findings regarding trends and attribution are less certain: It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades ... these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones.31

Unprecedented Changes in the Climate System
AR6 WGI states that some of the changes in the climate, or their observable effects, are unprecedented on a scale of centuries to millennia. This assessment is based on groups of studies estimating past CO2, CH4, and N2O atmospheric concentrations, using a variety of analytic techniques, to cover periods going back 800,000 years for CH4 and N2O, and longer periods for CO2. In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence). Since 1750, increases in CO2 (47%) and CH4 (156%) concentrations far exceed—and increases in N2O (23%) are similar to—the natural multi-millennial changes between glacial and interglacial periods over at least the past 800,000 years (very high confidence).32 In AR6 WGI there is medium confidence that global surface temperatures are now higher than they have been for thousands of years (see Figure 2, panel (a)). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850–1900] (medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago, when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (medium confidence).33

REFERENCES

9 IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers,” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2021, p. 4 (hereinafter IPCC SPM WGI 2021).
10 The glossary in IPCC WGI 2021 defines well-mixed greenhouse gas as follows: Well-mixed greenhouse gas.... A greenhouse gas that has an atmospheric lifetime long enough (> several years) to be homogeneously mixed in the troposphere, and as such the global average mixing ratio can be determined from a network of surface observations. For many well-mixed greenhouse gases, measurements made in remote regions differ from the global mean by < 15%.
11 The glossary in IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change—Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, provides the following definition of greenhouse gases: Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect.
12 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 4.
13 CRS Report R45086, Evolving Assessments of Human and Natural Contributions to Climate Change, by Jane A. Leggett.
14 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report—Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014 (hereinafter IPCC AR5 WGI,II,III 2014)
15 IPCC notes the following in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change—Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014: In the Synthesis Report, the certainty in key assessment findings is communicated as in the Working Group Reports and Special Reports. It is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers.
16 IPCC AR5 WGI,II,III 2014, p. 17.
17 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 5.
18 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 4: Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of a outcome or result: virtually certain 99–100% probability; very likely 90–100%; likely 66–100%; about as likely as not 33–66%; unlikely 0–33%; very unlikely 0–10%; and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%; more likely than not >50–100%; and extremely unlikely 0–5%) are also used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, for example, very likely. This is consistent with AR5. In this Report, unless stated otherwise, square brackets [x to y] are used to provide the assessed very likely range, or 90% interval.
19 For explanation of climate, climate variability, and climate change, see CRS In Focus IF11446, Weather and Climate Change: What’s the Difference?, by Jane A. Leggett.
20 The U.S. Geological Survey defines anthropogenic as “referring to environmental change caused or influenced by people, either directly or indirectly.” See U.S. Geological Survey, Earthword: Anthropogenic, USGS.gov | Science for a changing world news/science-snippet/earthword-anthropogenic.
21 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 5.
22 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty for the control of substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. See U.S. Department of State, The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, https://www.state.gov/key-topics-of...ol-onsubstances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/.
24 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, pp. 4-6.
25 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 4.
26 Where statements of levels of certainty appear in this CRS report, they are sourced from AR6 WGI unless stated otherwise.
27 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 8.
28 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 5.
29 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 5.
30 IPCC WGI 2021, p. 1-168.
31 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 9.
32 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 8.
33 IPCC SPM WGI 2021, p. 8.

 

[ReinyDays]

From https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47082#:~:text=The AR6 WGI presents current,greater intensity since the 1950s,

Human Influence on Planetary Warming
The question of whether and how human activity, among other potential drivers, has contributed to climate change has been discussed and debated for many years. Scientists have considered many potential natural and human-induced drivers of climate change and have examined these influences for their effect on the current climate using evidence from both historical and geological records. Each version of the WGI report has included a precisely worded assessment of the human role in climate change, which has been monitored by many governments, news media, and civil society organizations around the world. Among the central findings of the AR6 WGI was the following: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.”

The statement is supported by a mechanism of human influence—the increases in well-mixed10 greenhouse gases (GHGs),11 including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halogenated gases (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], and hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs]) in the atmosphere: “Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities.” 12 The heat-trapping character of GHGs in the atmosphere is one of their known physical properties.13

The AR6 WGI statement on human influence on warming differs from the earlier assessment of human influence included in the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5),14 which states that anthropogenic GHGs (i.e., those emitted through human activity) “are extremely likely15 to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” 16

Currently Observed Climate Changes
AR6 WGI states that from about 1750 to the present, 24 “Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” 25 AR6 WGI presents numerous changes observable in data obtained from monitoring of the climate and climate-sensitive aspects of the earth system. The report identifies where climate-related changes are detectable, and with some detectable changes, the report assesses the likelihoods that a particular change is attributable to human influence. AR6 WGI states varying levels of confidence in being able to attribute observed changes to human influence. Further, there are varying levels of certainty about whether particular changes are influenced by human activity, and these are also reported explicitly.26 The changes that are observed are not uniform with respect to their extent, the direction of the change, or the regional character of the change. As illustrated in the following quotation, the AR6 WGI concludes that changes in extremes of hot and cold are virtually certain to have occurred: It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that humaninduced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system.27 One manifestation of large-scale regional differences in the results of climate change is the observed quantity and extent of polar sea ice. Seasonal Arctic sea ice has decreased since 1979, a trend that is very likely to have been human induced, while seasonal Antarctic sea ice has remained unchanged in the same period.28 Retreat of glaciers is a consistent global phenomenon across many regions and assessed as very likely to have been influenced by human activity. The warming of the upper ocean since the 1970s is a globally consistent trend that is virtually certain and for which AR6 WGI states human influence to be extremely likely:29 “ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010.”30

AR6 WGI states that there have likely been changes in the occurrence of major tropical cyclones, but the findings regarding trends and attribution are less certain: It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades ... these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones.31

Unprecedented Changes in the Climate System
AR6 WGI states that some of the changes in the climate, or their observable effects, are unprecedented on a scale of centuries to millennia. This assessment is based on groups of studies estimating past CO2, CH4, and N2O atmospheric concentrations, using a variety of analytic techniques, to cover periods going back 800,000 years for CH4 and N2O, and longer periods for CO2. In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence). Since 1750, increases in CO2 (47%) and CH4 (156%) concentrations far exceed—and increases in N2O (23%) are similar to—the natural multi-millennial changes between glacial and interglacial periods over at least the past 800,000 years (very high confidence).32 In AR6 WGI there is medium confidence that global surface temperatures are now higher than they have been for thousands of years (see Figure 2, panel (a)). Temperatures during the most recent decade (2011–2020) exceed those of the most recent multi-century warm period, around 6500 years ago [0.2°C to 1°C relative to 1850–1900] (medium confidence). Prior to that, the next most recent warm period was about 125,000 years ago, when the multi-century temperature [0.5°C to 1.5°C relative to 1850–1900] overlaps the observations of the most recent decade (medium confidence).33

No math ... you must be stupid ... start with SB ... or Köppen ...

Florida:

"A humid subtropical climate is a zone of climate characterized by hot and humid summers, and cool to mild winters. These climates normally lie on the southeast side of all continents (except Antarctica), generally between latitudes 25° and 40° and are located poleward from adjacent tropical climates. It is also known as warm temperate climate in some climate classifications.[1]

Under the Köppen climate classification, Cfa and Cwa climates are either described as humid subtropical climates or warm temperate climates. This climate features mean temperature in the coldest month between 0 °C (32 °F) (or −3 °C (27 °F)) and 18 °C (64 °F) and mean temperature in the warmest month 22 °C (72 °F) or higher. However, while some climatologists have opted to describe this climate type as a "humid subtropical climate",[2] Köppen himself never used this term. The humid subtropical climate classification was officially created under the Trewartha climate classification.[citation needed] In this classification, climates are termed humid subtropical when they have at least 8 months with a mean temperature above 10 °C (50 °F).

While many subtropical climates tend to be located at or near coastal locations, in some cases, they extend inland, most notably in China and the United States,[3] where they exhibit more pronounced seasonal variations and sharper contrasts between summer and winter, as part of a gradient between the hotter tropical climates of the southern coasts and the colder continental climates to the north and further inland. As such, the climate can be said to exhibit somewhat different features depending on whether it is found inland, or in a maritime position."

[Wikipedia emphasis removed, mine added]

Adding a degree or two to these definitions doesn't change the climate under Köppen ... that's inarguable ... better to point out Köppen's flaws, of which there are several ... starting with the fact it's a classification system and not a mathematical function ...

I'm open to alternatives ... are you claiming temperature is a function of CO2 concentration, then what is that function? ... f(CO2) = ? ... and state your reference for the albedo value you're using ... NASA only gives us 0.3, and that resolves to ±10ºC on Earth's surface ... you should know better than that, but you'll lie anyway ...

 

[jc456]

What is your proof that man DOES NOT impact climate change.

warmers can't prove it. How's that?

 

[jc456]

Currently Observed Climate Changes
AR6 WGI states that from about 1750 to the present, 24 “Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.” 25 AR6 WGI presents numerous changes observable in data obtained from monitoring of the climate and climate-sensitive aspects of the earth system. The report identifies where climate-related changes are detectable, and with some detectable changes, the report assesses the likelihoods that a particular change is attributable to human influence. AR6 WGI states varying levels of confidence in being able to attribute observed changes to human influence. Further, there are varying levels of certainty about whether particular changes are influenced by human activity, and these are also reported explicitly.26 The changes that are observed are not uniform with respect to their extent, the direction of the change, or the regional character of the change. As illustrated in the following quotation, the AR6 WGI concludes that changes in extremes of hot and cold are virtually certain to have occurred: It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that humaninduced climate change is the main driver of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system.27 One manifestation of large-scale regional differences in the results of climate change is the observed quantity and extent of polar sea ice. Seasonal Arctic sea ice has decreased since 1979, a trend that is very likely to have been human induced, while seasonal Antarctic sea ice has remained unchanged in the same period.28 Retreat of glaciers is a consistent global phenomenon across many regions and assessed as very likely to have been influenced by human activity. The warming of the upper ocean since the 1970s is a globally consistent trend that is virtually certain and for which AR6 WGI states human influence to be extremely likely:29 “ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010.”30

where is this change? that report never stated the location of such change referenced in the text. No where. I've repeatedly asked you for where has climate change and this is mere poop on a wall flung for interference that you don't have the information. I call you out on this one section alone.