Discussion
Started 7th Sep, 2023
  • Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw 🏛️

Has the process of global warming in recent years accelerated faster than it was predicted just a few years ago?

What are the research results that support the thesis that as a result of human civilization, as a result of still increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the process of global warming in recent years has accelerated faster than previously predicted?
A growing number of research centers analyzing the planet's climate in the long term, analyzing the progressive process of climate change, developing long-term forecast models of climate change, changes in ocean water temps are publishing the results of their research, which show that as a result of human civilizational activity, as a result of still increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the process of global warming in recent years has accelerated faster than previously predicted just a few years ago. These institutions include, among others, the international research team established at the UN and publishing IPCC reports. In addition to this, the European Space Agency (ESA) Copernicus also recently published the results of its ongoing research on the climate of planet Earth, which showed that in the 1st half of 2023, the average temp. of planet Earth's atmosphere was 16.8 degrees C. This is the highest temp. in the history of measurements. This is further evidence supporting the thesis that the global climate crisis has begun, and that the green economic transformation measures carried out in recent years, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, were definitely insufficient. In addition, in many countries, these actions have fallen far short of the pledges made at the UN Climate COP. Besides, the results of the aforementioned studies also support the thesis that the process of global warming in recent years has accelerated faster than previously predicted. This is a particularly important issue in the context of the living conditions of the next generations of people on the planet. Living conditions will rapidly deteriorate for many people on the planet in the not too distant future. Increasing summer heat, droughts, forest fires, weather anomalies, violent storms, drinking water shortages, deterioration of air quality, melting glaciers, rising water levels in the seas and oceans, shrinking areas of forests and other types of natural ecosystems, deterioration of the natural environment, progressive loss of biodiversity of natural ecosystems, extinction of pollinating insects and many other forms of life, etc. these are the key effects of the progressive global warming process, which will determine the deterioration of the quality of life on the planet for many people. In 2023 and 2024, the El Ninio effect is also an additional factor generating an increase in atmospheric temperature. However, according to the results of studies on the planet's climate, analyses of long-term climate change El Ninio is only an additional factor to the main factor is still the rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions generated by human civilization still based largely on the dirty combustion economy. However, there are many more research results also conducted by other institutions and research centers confirming the above theses. Please also provide other results of research conducted on this issue.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
What are the results of research supporting the thesis that, as a result of human civilization, as a result of still increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the process of global warming in recent years has accelerated faster than previously predicted?
Has the process of global warming in recent years accelerated faster than it was predicted just a few years ago?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
On my profile of the Research Gate portal, you can find several publications on the issues of environmental policy, green transformation of the economy, green economics, sustainable economic development, etc. I invite you to scientific cooperation in these issues.
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz

All replies (2)

Mohsen Khosravi
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
Yep, for sure; there is a substantial evidence showing higher activity of the sun which leads to global warming and even a possible solar storm in near future!
2 Recommendations
Alastair Bain McDonald
Independent Researcher
There have been so many predictions of the effects of global warmings that it is imoossible to tell if the effects of global warming are greater than expected. For instance the The annual Arctic sea ice melt has stopped increasing whereas the Antarctic sea ice has stopped increasing and is now hitting record lows. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
But the number of wild fires and hurricanes etc. does seem to be increasing in intensity.
2 Recommendations

Similar questions and discussions

Former technical workaround for the Question: "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature?"
Discussion
501 replies
  • Peter EirichPeter Eirich
FYI: INFORMATION REGARDING THE FORMER "CONTINUED" THREAD
On 1 Nov 2023, the discussion thread formerly known as:
  • What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (CONTINUED)?
... which had an old URL of:
... was renamed to become this present thread:
  • Former technical workaround for the Question: "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature?"
... with its new URL of:
The contents of this thread will remain available for reference purposes. However, this thread should now be considered to be INACTIVE.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE NOTE: It is possible that a second rename of this thread may be needed in the near term.
If that should happen, then any bookmarks to this thread that you may have stored as your own browser bookmarks, or as desktop shortcuts (in Windows), or as the Apple or Linux equivalents to Windows shortcuts, will no longer work. Therefore, please be sure make note of the URL link to the below web page, and please also make a reminder to always look for the 10th and final post on that webpage, because that is where you will always be able to find the most current URL link to the content that had once been posted to the "What is the statistical relationship between CO2 concentration level and Global change in Temperature (CONTINUED)?" thread.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because this thread has become INACTIVE, you may want to either begin or resume making new topical posts over on the original thread:
However, because of discussions that took place within this workaround thread during its period of operation, an additional posting option has emerged. There was a recognition that a thread which was focused more sharply on the physics-based aspects of the global warming question could also be of value to those who had been posting here. Accordingly, such a new thread has now been established:
All viewpoints in the global warming debate are welcome in that new discussion thread.
How do new technologies help protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
Discussion
4 replies
  • Dariusz ProkopowiczDariusz Prokopowicz
Which new ICT information technologies are most helpful in protecting the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
What are examples of new technologies typical of the current fourth technological revolution that help protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
Which new technologies, including ICT information technologies, technologies categorized as Industry 4.0 or Industry 5.0 are helping to protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
How do new Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence technologies, including deep learning based on artificial neural networks, help protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
New technologies, including ICT information technologies, technologies categorized as Industry 4.0 or Industry 5.0 are finding new applications. These technologies are currently developing rapidly and are an important factor in the current fourth technological revolution. On the other hand, due to the still high emissions of greenhouse gases generating the process of global warming, due to progressive climate change, increasingly frequent weather anomalies and climatic disasters, in addition to increasing environmental pollution, still rapidly decreasing areas of forests, carried out predatory forest management, the level of biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems is rapidly decreasing. Therefore, it is necessary to engage new technologies, including ICT information technologies, technologies categorized as Industry 4.0/Industry 5.0, including new technologies in the field of Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence in order to improve and scale up the protection of the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
How do the new technologies of Big Data Analytics and artificial intelligence, including deep learning based on artificial neural networks, help to protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
Which new technologies, including ICT information technologies, technologies categorized as Industry 4.0 or Industry 5.0 are helping to protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
What are examples of new technologies that help protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
How do new technologies help protect the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems?
And what is your opinion on this topic?
What do you think about this topic?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Warm regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
Discussion
16 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: FALLACIES FROM “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D. (Quantum Causality),
Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
Cosmologists and quantum cosmologists seem to be almost unanimous (but happily today, a bit decreasingly unanimous) that, at the so-called level of the Planck era / quantum era of the original state of the big bang (of our universe, or of an infinite number of such universes existent in an infinite-eternal multiverse – whichever the case may be), where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified (but always stated without any solid proof), (1) either there did not exist and will never exist causality, (2) or any kind of causality is indistinguishable from the normal course of physical existents.
Is this sort of cosmological theorizing acceptable, where (1) the unification is supposed but is not necessarily physical-ontologically presupposable, and (2) causality and non-causality are taken in the mood of dilemma? This sort of theorizing is, of course, based on some facts that most physicists and other scientists agree on without much effort to search for causes of approval or disapproval.
But the adequacy of such reasons for this conclusion is questionable. The manner of concluding to non-causality or indistinguishability of causality and non-causality at spots in the universe or multiverse, where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, is questionable too. The main reason is the lack of physical-ontological clarity regarding the status of causality and the status of unification of the forces.
In my opinion, this is based on the inevitable fact that whatever the mathematics automatically prescribes for such situations can be absolute only if all the parameters, quantities, etc. that have entered the equations are absolute. The prescribed necessity condition has not been the case in the physics that goes into the mathematical formulation of the said theory.
Even concerning the measurement that humanity has so far made of the speed of light is not exact and absolute. The reason for the fantastic cosmological conclusion regarding a volatile decision for or against causality and regarding a supposed verity of the supposition that all forces are unified therein, does not possess an adequate mathematical reason, and of course not a sufficiently physical.
The reason I gave is not strictly and purely mathematical, physical, or just generally philosophical. It is strictly physical-ontological and mathematical-philosophical. Things physical-ontological are not “meta-”physical in the sense of being beyond the physical. Instead, they treat of the preconditions for there being physics and mathematics. They being pre-conditions, not respecting them leads to grave theoretical problems in mathematics, science, and philosophy.
Hence, in my opinion, fundamentally mathematical-ontological and physical-ontological presuppositions and reasons are more rationally to be acceptable for the foundations of mathematics and physics than all that we have as strictly mathematical and physical in the name of foundations. I give here the obvious in order to assure clarity: I presuppose that physical ontology consists of the necessary presuppositions of anything dealt with in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and other purely physical sciences, and of course of the mathematics and logic as applied to existent physical things / processes.
The main reason being considered for the so-called non-causality and indistinguishability between causality and non-causality at certain cosmological or physical spots seems to be that space and time could exist only with the big bang (or whatever could be imagined to be in place of it), whether just less than 14 billion years ago or doubly or triply so much time ago or whatever.
First, my questions on this assumption are based on an antagonism that I have to cosmologists lapping up the opinion expressed by St. Augustine centuries ago. That is, if space and time “exist” only if and from the time when the universe exists, then the question of space and time before the expansion of the universe is meaningless. These cosmologists presume that the expansion of the universe was from a nullity state, and that hence it could not have existed before the beginning of the expansion. What if it existed from eternity like a primeval stuff without any change and then suddenly began to explode? This is the basic premise they seem to hold, and then conclude that time, as an “existent” now, would not have existed before the expansion! What a clarity about the concept of existence! Evidently, this is due to the gaping absence of regard for the physical-ontological presuppositions behind physical existence.
Secondly, as is evident, some of them think that space and time are some things to exist beyond or behind all the physical processes that exist. Thus, some identify space even with ether. If we have so far only been able to measure physical processes, why to call them as measures of space and time? Why not call them just as what it is, and accept that these are termed as space and time merely for ease? After all, whatever names we give to anything does not exist; and we have not seen space and time at all.
Thirdly, is it such a difficult thing for scientists to accept the lack of evidence of any sort of “existence” of space and time as background entities? Einstein spoke not of the curvature of existent spacetime, but of the mathematical calculations within a theory of the measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of existent physical processes as showing us that the measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of the physical processes – including existent energy-carrier gravitational wavicles – is curving within mathematical calculations.
Now, if the curvature is of existent processes (including existent energy-carrier gravitational wavcles), then, at the so-called primeval spot in each existent universe (even within each member of an infinite-eternal multiverse containing an infinite number of finite-content universes like ours) where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, there cannot be a suspension of causation, because nothing existent can be compressed or rarefied into absolute nullity and continue to exist.
This demonstrates that, even at the highly condensed or rarefied states, no existent is nothing. It continues to exist in its Extended and Changing nature. If anything is in Extension-Change-wise existence, it is nothing but causal existence, constantly causing finite impacts.
Why, then, are some cosmologists and theoretical physicists insisting that gravitons do not exist, space and time are entities, gravitation is mere spacetime curvature, causality disappears at certain spots in the cosmos (and in quantum-physical contexts), etc? Why not, then, also say that material bodies are merely spacetime curvature and cannot exist? Is this not due to undue trust in the science-automation powers of mathematics, which can only describe processes in a manner conducive to its foundations, and not tell us whether there is causation or not? I believe that only slavishly mathematically automated minds can accept such claims.
Examples of situations where causality is supposed to disappear are plenty in physics. More than century of non-causal interpretations within Uncertainty Principle, Double Slit Experiment, EPR Paradox, Black Hole Singularity, Vacuum Creation of Universes, etc. are clear examples of physicists and cosmologists becoming prey to the supposed omnipotence of mathematics and their unquestioning faith in the powers of mathematics.
It is useless, in defence of mathematics and physics, to cite here the extreme clarity and effectiveness of mathematical applications in instruments in space-scientific, technological, medical, and other fields. Did I ever question these precisions and achievements? But do the clarity and effectivity of mathematics mean that mathematics is absolute? If they can admit that it is not absolute, then let them tell us where it will be relative and less than absolute. Otherwise, they are mere believers in a product of the human mind, as if mathematics were given by a miraculously active almighty space and time.
All physicists need to recognize that all languages including mathematics are constructions by minds, but with foundations in reality out-there. Nothing can present the physical processes to us absolutely well. Mathematics as applied in physics (or other sciences) is an exact science of certain conceptually generalizable frames of physical processes. This awareness might help physicists to de-absolutize mathematical applications in physics.
Fourthly, the above has another important dimension. Physics or for that matter any other science cannot have at its foundations concepts that belong merely to the specific science. I shall give an example as to how some physicists think that physics needs only physical concepts at its foundations: To the question what motion is, one may define it in terms allegedly merely of time as “the orientation of the wave function over time”. In fact, the person has already presupposed quantum physics here, which is clear from his mention of the wave function, which naturally presupposes also the previous physics that have given rise to quantum physics.
This sort of presupposing the specific science itself for defining its foundational concepts is what happens when concepts from within the specific science, and not clearly physical-ontological notions, come into play in the foundations of the science. Space and time are measuremental, hence cognitive and epistemic. These are not physical-ontological notions. Hence, these cannot be at the foundations of physics or of any other science. These are derivative notions.
It is for this reason that I have posited Extension and Change as the primary foundational notions. As I have already shown in many of my previous papers and books, these two are the only two exhaustive implications of the concept of the To Be of Reality-in-total as the totality of whatever exists.
Is it time we shift emphasis from technological solutions to climate change & focus on the 'Human Dimension'?
Question
7554 answers
  • Raveendra Nath YasarapuRaveendra Nath Yasarapu
Isn't the obvious solution and the elephant-in-the-room 'BETTER HUMAN BEINGS'? Shouldn't the focus be on better human beings rather than better technology? Why is it that everyone wants to develop better technology rather than focus on better humanity? Because no one has the answers and no one wants to change themselves? In environmental degradation, is it not obvious that nature can heal itself, if only left alone, and it is we humans who need regulation? Many natural parks managers do just that; seal off the area from human interference to let nature heal and recover. It is classified as 'Strict Nature Reserve"by IUCN. Complacency and inaction are not advocated here, as many have misunderstood, but the shifting of focus from technology to the human being. As technology is no match for human greed, isn't introspection & restraining ourselves more relevant than developing more technology, which caused the mess in the first place, by making it easy for a few to consume more? Since technology is only a short term quick fix which fails after a short time, isn't the real problem our addiction to material consumption & our lack of understanding about human nature? Isn't developing more technology sustaining the addiction instead of correcting it, leading to more complex problems later on, needing more complex technological quick fixes like higher drug dosages, more ground troops & equipment, (along with their debilitating side effects) in the future? Isn't this the vicious addiction circle we are trapped in? As researchers, do we merely buy more time with technology OR go to the very root of the problem, the human being?
A lot of hue and cry is made about climate change and the environment in general. Public and private money is poured into research to study its effects on the environment, sustainability etc. Should we study nature or ourselves?
" Our studies must begin with our selves and not with the heavens. "-Ouspensky
Human activities have been found to have a direct correlation to climate change and its impact on the environment(I=P x A x T, the Ehrlich and Holdren equation), in spite of what some complacent sections say to protect their own self interests.
We hardly know about Human nature. We can scarcely predict human behavior. We need to find out why we think like we do and why we do what we do and why, in spite of all knowledge and wisdom, consume more than what we need, in the form of addictions to consumption and imbalance not only ourselves but also the family, society and environment around us..
Humanity is directly responsible for all the unnatural imbalances occurring on the planet. Yet we refuse to take responsibility and instead focus on climate change, or fool the public exchequer with a 'breakthrough in renewable energy just around the corner'. We scarcely know what drives human beings. If we had known, all the imbalances around us would have had solutions by now, given the amount of money plowed into finding such solutions. Are we blindly groping in the dark of climate change because we don't know the answers to our own nature?
Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change? Why focus effort on 'externals' when the problem is 'internal'- 'me'?
Aren't we addicts denying our addiction and blaming everything else but ourselves?
" We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make the world." - Buddha 
IMHO, We don't need to save the World. It is enough if we save ourselves from ourselves. The need of the hour is not vain glorious interventions, but self-restraint and self-correction!
The Mind is the Final frontier.

Related Publications

Article
This study uses climate projections from multiple models and for different climate regions to investigate how climate change may impact the transportation infrastructure in the United States. Climate data from both an ensemble of 19 different climate models at both RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 as well as three individual prediction models at the same Represen...
Article
We carry out a detection and attribution analysis of observed near-surface temperatures to 2010 and demonstrate that the signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century. As a result, we show that global warming is set to continue, with the second decade of the 21st century predicted to be very likely...
Article
To assess the potential effects of global warming on the North American flora, the reported geographical distributions of the 15,148 native North American vascular plant species were matched with climate data for 194 geographical areas to estimate the current ``climate envelope`` for each species. Three methods of analysis were used to construct th...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.