How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

How long did it take? Is there still ice in the Arctic. Nothing different

abu afak , what did you disagree with?

 

[Dagosa]

How long did it take? Is there still ice in the Arctic. Nothing different

Asking how long it took isn’t rate. Do you need help with “ rate” you don’t seem to understand what it is.

 

[Dagosa]

How long did it take? Is there still ice in the Arctic. Nothing different

The rate up is different. Do you know what rate is ?

 

[jc456]

The rate up is different. Do you know what rate is ?

do you? let's see the rate from 5 million years ago! Cause I know you know!!!!

 

[Dagosa]

do you? let's see the rate from 5 million years ago! Cause I know you know!!!!

Lets say I know where to go to find out. Tell us, why does it matter what it was 5 million years ago ?

 

[jc456]

Lets say I know where to go to find out. Tell us, why does it matter what it was 5 million years ago ?

Maybe because of your nonsense claim? Afraid to show huh?

 

[Dagosa]

do you? let's see the rate from 5 million years ago! Cause I know you know!!!!

Seems like a dumb question.

Maybe because of your nonsense claim? Afraid to show huh?

Afraid to show how science illiterate you are ? You do that with every post you make.

 

[Dagosa]

Maybe because of your nonsense claim? Afraid to show huh?

Afraid to show what ? You’ve asked several questions, none of which make any sense. Which nonsensical question are you asking now ?
Try again.

 

[San Souci]

Maybe because of your nonsense claim? Afraid to show huh?

Perhaps the Libbys could ask China and India and South America to go all out for Wind and Solar? Fat chance.

 

[Dagosa]

Perhaps the Libbys could ask China and India and South America to go all out for Wind and Solar? Fat chance.

Perhaps you should pay attention, China dominates…Solar.
Fat chance you should pay attention.
[

 

[Dagosa]

Perhaps the Libbys could ask China and India and South America to go all out for Wind and Solar? Fat chance.

Both India and China are way ahead of you. China leads the world in Solar.

India's solar surge: A look at ambitious plans, actual progress, and funding trends

The period from 2013 to 2022 witnessed significant growth in India’s solar energy capacity, with production surging from 1.60 GW in 2013 to 63.15 GW in 2022.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Both India and China are way ahead of you. China leads the world in Solar.

India's solar surge: A look at ambitious plans, actual progress, and funding trends

The period from 2013 to 2022 witnessed significant growth in India’s solar energy capacity, with production surging from 1.60 GW in 2013 to 63.15 GW in 2022.

www.indiatoday.in

China leads the world in coal.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps you should pay attention, China dominates…Solar.
Fat chance you should pay attention.
[

yep, they sell them panels everywhere while installing coal facilities for their power source. ahahahahaahahahahaa

 

[jc456]

Afraid to show what ? You’ve asked several questions, none of which make any sense. Which nonsensical question are you asking now ?
Try again.

It is amazing how many times you lose track of your discussions within a thread. Really, your inability to traverse a thread and follow along is remarkable. How do you find a toilet?

do you? let's see the rate from 5 million years ago! Cause I know you know!!!!

And cuck, you answered this one post. And now you haven't a clue. hahahahahahahahahaahahaha dementia Dag!!!!

 

[rampart]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

have you seen the papers on carbon isotopes in ice flows?

there is plemty of evidence that the earth/system is warming, and that humans are the cause.

 

[Crick]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Then what has convinced the world's scientists of its validity?

...as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Are you claiming that is what all the world's scientists are doing?

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

you lying fool.

 

[elektra]

have you seen the papers on carbon isotopes in ice flows?
there is plemty of evidence that the earth/system is warming, and that humans are the cause.

Carbon comes from Volcanic ash. Not an indicator of anything but Volcanic activity.

 

[Crick]

Carbon comes from Volcanic ash. Not an indicator of anything but Volcanic activity.

Isotopic analysis agrees very closely with simple bookkeeping that virtually every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel. You know that is a fact and yet you continue to claim otherwise. That's known as lying.

 

[ding]

Isotopic analysis agrees very closely with simple bookkeeping that virtually every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere above the pre-industrial 280 ppm was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel. You know that is a fact and yet you continue to claim otherwise. That's known as lying.

Yes, man's emissions are part of the carbon cycle. So what? Have you done the math on how much man's emissions should have increased atmospheric CO2? Where did the rest of man's emissions go? And do you assume the ocean hasn't been releasing CO2?