How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Crick]

It's funny, you post this yet cannot produce where the climate change you complain about is. I lived in Chicago for 50 years and my climate today is the same as it was 50 years ago. Therefore, if you're going to say climate is changing, I merely assume you know where. It would be great if you could educate me.

Here are a few animated maps of the globe illustrating where and how temperatures are changing.

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2020

This color-coded map in Robinson projection displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies. Normal temperatures are the average over the 30 year baseline period 1951-1980. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower than normal temperatures are shown in...

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

I presume you can find Chicago.

 

[Stann]

You all can’t prove CO2 warms anything. Frank and many of us asking you how warm 120 ppm is? You haven’t explained why the earth isn’t one temperature. You can’t admit the earth isn’t stable. So don’t insult my intelligence by saying stupid phrases like man changes climate without evidence of any change in climate. One place, go?

No evidence ! Climate change is no longer a untested scientific opinion. That day has come and went long ago. It is a Scientific theory or fact like gravity. There is no sense in arguing about it with trolls like you.

 

[Stann]

I'd prefer the demofks just post the evidence of CO2 that is evil. Anyone breathing is in violation of their utter nonsense.

It's unfortunate people waste their breath on you. Good bye.

 

[abu afak]

Yes but the corporations that are blamed for pollution have to register in each state in order to operate there. So going through the AG or SOS per state govt is where the people can hold companies liable for damages complaints and debts created for the effects and impact of pollutants.

If the cost of operations exceeds the profits, the company cannot afford to operate there. So we need to organize district and statewide representation for people to report the impact of pollution and demand corrections, prevention and restitution. Then people will have democratic representation, process and protections instead of complaining globally to the UN which does not provide means for the people to petition the actual parties responsible for company policies and procedures.

I would put the Green Party in charge of facilitating representation per district proportional to the populations and party membership. And have the Libertarian party manage a Grand Jury grievance process of assessing complaints of abuses and violations, as well as reviewing settlements and solutions to make sure these meet Constitutional compliance. Tax reform can be implemented based on the restitution owed to Taxpayers for wrongdoing, where the money, credits or collateral on debts owed to the public can be reimbursed and reinvested in corrections.

Since each party has their own "laundry list" of govt abuses, reforms and solutions, why not put each party in charge of addressing their area of speciality, and delegate the work of corrections and restitution in teams?

Huh? This has little to do with AGW.
And Big Oil cos operate everywhere/every state. The main difference just taxes.
Just that ie, California's citizens pay more for gas/blend due to, in part, their unique regulations.
So we have that somewhat. But putting each state in charge instead of ie, the Natl emission/fuel economy standards would be mayhem
The UN is not in charge of anything.
Cool down NWO girl.
`
`

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

​

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?​

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

See, I've been there/done that.
But I thank you for your factual attempts, not the One Line Trolls that are 80% of USMB Shitkickers
(jc456, ToddsterParrot, ding, wetwall, mod-MisterBeale, mod-Meister, etc, etc, etc)

`

When you walk into a greenhouse, why dont people suffocate from all the CO2 in it? Because it is a lie, it is water vapor causing the heat, by humidity not CO2 bullshit. Give it up dickweeds. Oh yeah, Joe Biden voters, lowest form of intelligence.

 

[jc456]

Here are a few animated maps of the globe illustrating where and how temperatures are changing.

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2020

This color-coded map in Robinson projection displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies. Normal temperatures are the average over the 30 year baseline period 1951-1980. Higher than normal temperatures are shown in red and lower than normal temperatures are shown in...

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

I presume you can find Chicago.

But that doesn't prove climate changed. I still have the same weather today that existed in 1880. Pretty animations are not evidence of a climate change. Climate change would include a change in the weather from 1880 to 2020.

Now one thing I haven't seen you explain is why Greenland turned to a continent of ice while Chicago was thawing out. Still avoiding that answer. Now see, that's climate change. But the change was both warm and cold at the same time.

There is still ice at both poles so you are living in make believe.

 

[abu afak]

When you walk into a greenhouse, why dont people suffocate from all the CO2 in it? Because it is a lie, it is water vapor causing the heat, by humidity not CO2 bullshit. Give it up dickweeds. Oh yeah, Joe Biden voters, lowest form of intelligence.

View attachment 773069

You were doing so well with link challenges and I Refuted or explained every one.. with NO Rebuttal from you.
Then you out yourself as just another denier CLOWN.
What's with the IQ chart?
You are non-conversant on this topic at least
NO claim was made about 'suffocating' on CO2 at any PPM, just that with increase it gets warmer, and it remains untouched by you.
Doubling CO2 would not make anyone suffocate just that the planet will keep warming over 400 PPM and up. (hasn't reached there in million of years)

Suggestion [low] IQ-chart Clown:
Look up the levels/PPMs that WOULD affect humans. I believe it would not start until app 1500-2000 PPM and up.
Except SEA LEVEL/melting would probably max out at 500 PPM at 230' higher and WILL be at least 30' higher at 400PPM+.
Say Goodbye to YOUR FLORIDUH.

No longer willing to waste space on your stupid denial ass.
But getting these Red Herrings off the table is good for everyone else's knowledge.
`

 

[Stann]

When you walk into a greenhouse, why dont people suffocate from all the CO2 in it? Because it is a lie, it is water vapor causing the heat, by humidity not CO2 bullshit. Give it up dickweeds. Oh yeah, Joe Biden voters, lowest form of intelligence.

View attachment 773069

LOL, CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere. It is not poisonous. People would only gasp for air if the O2 level dropped. It is dropping but not at a significant rate yet.

 

[abu afak]

When you walk into a greenhouse, why dont people suffocate from all the CO2 in it? Because it is a lie, it is water vapor causing the heat, by humidity not CO2 bullshit. Give it up dickweeds. Oh yeah, Joe Biden voters, lowest form of intelligence.

View attachment 773069

Use google or Your IQ charts only show/Prove you're below 100.
ie, 10 seconds

""1. Is 1500 ppm CO2 safe to breathe?
When the concentration of CO2 reaches 1500-2000PPM, it can cause headache, dizziness, difficulty breathing. After exceeding 2000PPM, we don't even want to continue working,and the ability of thinking is significantly reduced.""

Indoor Carbon Dioxide levels could be a health hazard,is that true?​

2. What is the OSHA limit for CO2?
""The current OSHA standard is 5000 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration. Gaseous carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant. Concentrations of 10% (100,000 ppm) or more can produce unconsciousness or death."

HIB 06-05-96 - Potential Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Asphyxiation Hazard ...​

etc.

IQ would enable you to make simple searches/answer your own questions
You did NOT have enough IQ to even look up your answers/challenges that I did FOR you.
You prefer to remain Ignorant and keep your politics.
`
`

 

[jc456]

LOL, CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere. It is not poisonous. People would only gasp for air if the O2 level dropped. It is dropping but not at a significant rate yet.

So you’re saying.04% of the atmosphere is dangerous. That’s weird

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

First noted by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

Stockholm Syndrome: Hansel and Greta

 

[Stann]

LOL, CO2 makes up only .04% of the atmosphere. It is not poisonous. People would only gasp for air if the O2 level dropped. It is dropping but not at a significant rate yet.

Indoors CO2 levels can reach 1,000 ppm in overcrowded and poorly ventilated spaces. This can cause headaches, dizziness and nausea. The atmospheric levels of CO2 were 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution today they are 412 ppm and still rising.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Climate Myth...​

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions​

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”​

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 60% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its Highest level in 15 to 20 Million years (Tripati et al. 2009).
(A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is Accelerating.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

<p>The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year...

skepticalscience.com

`

Superstitious Greenhouse Gasbags Belong in Chinese Balloons

 

[Stann]

Stockholm Syndrome: Hansel and Greta

LOL, thanks for the joke. Let's hope you're not serious. The final joke may well be on us.

 

[Stann]

So you’re saying.04% of the atmosphere is dangerous. That’s weird

The only comparison I can readily come up with off the cuff is, a drop of oil placed on the surface of a body of water expands until it covers a very large area . I remember reading once a quart of oil could contaminate 300 gallons of water. Unfortunately with these things a little goes a long way Good bye.

 

[abu afak]

LOL, thanks for the joke. Let's hope you're not serious. The final joke may well be on us.

If you respond to the one-line the trolls.. all those posts will get Negative feedback from me.
They must be Ignored, not acknowledged/ingratiated in Any way.
Last Warning.
(that includes ToadstoolParrot who just gave me a funny)
`

 

[jc456]

The only comparison I can readily come up with off the cuff is, a drop of oil placed on the surface of a body of water expands until it covers a very large area . I remember reading once a quart of oil could contaminate 300 gallons of water. Unfortunately with these things a little goes a long way Good bye.

So, .04% oil dropped in the ocean spreads the entire planet. Wow

 

[Stann]

If you respond to one-line the trolls.. all of those posts will get Negative feedback from me.
They must be Ignored not acknowleged in Any way.
Last Warning.

Okie Dokie !

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Because the Duopoly prevents it. Gotta fix that first. Democracy grants real power only to established majority interests.

Third parties are effectively shut out of Presidential elections by the Electoral College and are prevented from competing fairly more locally by winner-take-all and "Major Party" biased qualification processes.

A Republic Is a Foster Government

There are proposals for an automatic runoff, which both Ross Perot and Teddy Roosevelt would probably have won. But the ruling-class's Constitution blocks that through letting the set-in-stone political establishment decide about change.
They won't let it happen. Anything that breaks the duopoly's stranglehold on power is impossible to get through. Its sacred-cow Constitution won't let us, the people, decide anything except which of two pre-owned candidates we let make make all our political decisions for us, in loco parentis.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No evidence ! Climate change is no longer a untested scientific opinion. That day has come and went gone long ago. It is a Scientific theory or fact like gravity.

The Self-Educated Do Nazi Grammar; the College-Indoctrinated Do Not See Grammar

"Has went"? If you can't do advanced grammar, you can't do advanced science. It shows a lack of mental discipline, just like the babbling Greenies' wild scare-story hysteria about imminent doom falling on us unless we go back to the primitive poverty and chaos of believing that Nature is sacred and inviolable.