Sorry for the late answer , hope it ' s okayJapan will raise the warning level from 3 to 4 , and will begin preparation of a supplementary budget to cover any costs in damages . We will also send a team of expert seismographers from across the country to take a closer look at the situation . <| sep |> And it seems to translate well at the international level as well , at least for now . That ' s encouraging . <| sep |> Glad he ' s getting recognition , he deserves it , Great artist and guy . <| sep |> Look at this noob ! He never played HalfLife ! Ah ! jk <| sep |> Very impressive , great shape . <| sep |> I don ' t have the time to read all the science and I suspect nor do you , There are thousands of papers written , most of them mere parrots of others , so no , I have not had time to read them all . But , honestly , I don ' t need to read all of them if they are all essentially saying the same thing . What they say is broken down into several groups , or categories . One category of papers is a study of GHGs , what the measurements are , how much GHGs have changed over time , and who is at fault . Honestly , I have some small quibbles over some of the claims , some questions over the claimed accuracy of others , but for the most part , they seem to be fairly solid . Yes , the levels of CO 2 seem to have increased during our time of good measurements . Also , during that fairly short time frame , so has methane and a few others . Water Vapor , the elephant in the room , has not changed all that much . That ' s important , and it ' s ignored . The next group is temperature studies how much the temperature itself has changed . Rather than actually discover how the temperature has risen a lot in the last 20 years , what we ' ve seen NASA and the other record keepers do is redefine the temperature of the planet in the past . We ' re warmer only because they ' re claiming that the world was colder than we thought . We ' ve risen suddenly from 0 . 55 above the 20 th century average to 1 above the average because they cooled the earlier measurements . I ' m having trouble believing them . The next group is sensitivity how much increased GHG levels might cause the temperature to change . This is pure conjecture . They basically are saying if we fiddle with the parameters enough in our computer model , we get a temperature rise that might be dangerous after we ' re all dead so send us money ! I do agree that a 6 degrees temperature increase relative to the preindustrial era by 2100 seems rather unlikely at this point , but that ' s because we ' re not accelerating GHG emissions at the moment . Um , no . It ' s unlikely because there is no way that , even if GHGs cause the level of warming that the climate scientists claim , we can emit enough to cause that kind of warming . If you think we can , you have no idea how the mechanism works . You have no clue what the scientists say might be happening , here , and are just running on sound bites and scare mongering . That syr . ipcc . chipccsitesdefaultfilesAR 5 SYRFigureSPM . 5 . png you linked ? It doesn ' t show what you claim it shows . The first graph shows human emissions projected with no regard to the earths biosystem ' s response . It doesn ' t show atmospheric levels of CO 2 , just how much humans might emit . The second chart linked , the one below , shows the total eventual climate response after hundreds or thousands of years to increased warming , and it ' s just a guess . The central point of 540 ppm a doubling from 270 shows that the TOTAL estimated warming , after hundreds of years to get to equilibrium , is about 2 . 5 of warming . This is NOT what the temperature will be in 2100 , but what the scientists think the temperature could be in , oh , 2400 because of a rise in CO 2 levels to 540 ppm by 2100 . The figure for 2100 would be what the TCR might show . TCR is Transient Climate Response , and it ' s much , much lower than the estimated ECS . And the ECS you showed me in that chart is half of what your claimed 2100 temperature might be . Think about it this way , the average temperature of the planet is about 289 K , using the current Climate Science estimates . They say that the preindustrial temperature was about a degree less , or 288 K previous estimates , before they needed to adjust , was 288 . 5 K , by the way . So , in 140 years , thereabouts , we ' ve seen the Earth ' s temperature change by three tenths of one percent . 0 . 3 %. You are suggesting that in the next few decades , we ' re going to see that change increase to a full 2 % temperature increase , going from 288 k to 294 K . Now , how much energy would be required to capture to increase the mass of the surface of the planet by that much ? Did you know that a body in space radiates energy away at the 4 th power of it ' s temperature ? That raising the temperature by 2 increases the rate at which it radiates by 16 times ? Did you know that there is a well documented phenomenon near the equator that during the day , when the sun heats the surface of the oceans , that water vapor rises from the surface and cools in the upper troposphere , causing the albedo of that part of the planet to change ? There is a line of clouds that follows the sun around the earth every day . The albedo of the earth is higher there by a good bit , as the clouds reflect more sunlight away from the surface . A warmer surface would evaporate more water from the oceans . I know that the Climate Scientists have claimed that clouds are a positive feedback , and it ' s true that clouds at night slow nightly cooling to space , but they are also a daytime negative feedback and slow daytime warming . Clouds are so unstudied that they are not included in the climate models at all . what I rather do trust are the IPCC reports , which as you undoubtedly know are based on some aggregate consensusAt the end of the day , you are trusting that groups of people are right , because they agree . This is not how science is done this is how governments rule people .