How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.

\

So lets see just one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....you keep talking about all this evidence..I am just asking for one piece and you don't seem to be able to manage even that...don't feel bad though..no one else has either...You are demanding blind faith....not trust in experts who can make their case based on presentable evidence...

 

[SSDD]

This IS "How do we know humans are causing climate change".

Nothing there...but if it were, my bet is that there won't be a single scrap of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....

 

[Confounding]

So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists?

If you hired a lawyer would you trust their legal advice?

I think you should recognize that you lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist. The fact that most of them believe something similar is significant. It doesn't mean they're 100% right. It means our best and brightest believe something similar based on what we understand so far. They're the best we've got.

 

[Confounding]

The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.

\

So lets see just one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....you keep talking about all this evidence..I am just asking for one piece and you don't seem to be able to manage even that...don't feel bad though..no one else has either...You are demanding blind faith....not trust in experts who can make their case based on presentable evidence...

Why do you keep asking me to prove AGW? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not a climate scientist?

 

[Crick]

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Does not reject or refute AGW

https://www.clim-past.net/14/101/2018/cp-14-101-2018.pdf
Does not reject or refute AGW

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1
Does not reject or refute AGW

If you disagree, please show us some details from these studies that you think do so.

 

[SSDD]

So you think we should just blindly trust them and accept whatever they say because they are scientists?

If you hired a lawyer would you trust their legal advice?

Before I "HIRED" a lawyer, I would thoroughly vet him...I would check his track record...I would ask a lot of questions to determine whether he warranted my trust. I haven't hired a climate scientist, and have not seen any vetting process that happens before what they say is taken as gospel...I have no idea whether they graduated first in their class or last...I have no idea whether they are deeply in debt, under investigation, or anything else about them...exactly why should I place trust in what someone says simply because they possess a scrap of paper which says climate scientist on it?

I think you should recognize that you lack context and depth of knowledge compared to a climate scientist. The fact that most of them believe something similar is significant. It doesn't mean they're 100% right. It means our best and brightest believe something similar based on what we understand so far. They're the best we've got.

Why should I recognize that? I seem to know precisely what sort of evidence they can and can not produce. And I have some news for you bucky...climate scientists are neither the best nor the brightest...climate science is for people who want to study science, but don't have the intellectual wattage necessary to get through an actual hard science curriculum like physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, geology, etc...climate science is a soft science....

 

[SSDD]

The scientists think there's enough evidence to support their claims. I'll take their word over your uninformed interpretation of the situation.

\

So lets see just one single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.....you keep talking about all this evidence..I am just asking for one piece and you don't seem to be able to manage even that...don't feel bad though..no one else has either...You are demanding blind faith....not trust in experts who can make their case based on presentable evidence...

Why do you keep asking me to prove AGW? How many times do I have to tell you I'm not a climate scientist?

I am not asking you to prove anything.....I am just asking for a single piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...even such a piece of evidence would not prove man made global warming...but it would at least be a piece of evidence that demonstrates that the climate we are experiencing now is at least some amount outside of the boundaries of natural variability...

 

[Confounding]

Scientists collect mountains of data and say "This is what we think it means."

Then unqualified people on message boards say "No, THIS is what your data means, and you're wrong about it being enough to come to the conclusion you've come to."

 

[SSDD]

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Does not reject or refute AGW

but it does demonstrate that in areas that are away from the influence of the oceans, that there has been no statistically important temperature trend over the past couple of decades.

https://www.clim-past.net/14/101/2018/cp-14-101-2018.pdf
Does not reject or refute AGW[;/quote]

But it does demonstrate that within the area of the study, natural variability explains the climate just fine...no evidence of human influence on the climate...

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1
Does not reject or refute AGW

But it does demonstrate surface cooling in the southern oceans and an increase in antarctic sea ice...In addition, it calls CIMP5 models into question for their excessive ocean surface warming and ice decrease projections, when compared to observations of cooler oceans and more ice...

Are you going to find a single paper that simply states that it refutes AGW? Probably not...but literally hundreds last year are calling the claims of the consensus into question...pointing out failures in modeling, failed predictions, etc...the body of actual science which is skeptical of the consensus view is growing at a rapid pace which explains why your idiot priests are doubling down on their failures in panic mode...

 

[Crick]

Their study shows that different regions have different temperature trends. It makes not the slightest suggestion that the accepted global temperature data is in error.

 

[SSDD]

Their study shows that different regions have different temperature trends. It makes not the slightest suggestion that the accepted global temperature data is in error.

If what bit of warming there is is regional then it makes a bald faced lie out of the claim of "global" warming. There is some regional warming.. and some regional cooling...when you look at regional records, there is no discernible trend...it is only when you look at the heavily manipulated, homogenized, infilled global "record" that one sees warming...it is an artifact of tampering, not of "global" warming.

 

[SSDD]

As I said the papers I provided lean towards there being no net warming since the mid to late 20th century...but we can look at dozens of non hockey stick reconstructions...we can look at a couple of dozen which find a lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea level rise...we can look at a couple of dozen that find nothing unusual happening with either glaciers or polar ice, we can look at a couple of recent papers examining Antarctic ice melting due to high geothermal heat flux, and there are a few that describe abrupt degrees per decade periods of natural warming.

Or we can look at better than 100 which look at the solar influence on climate vs the anthropogenic claims, a couple of dozen which examine ENSO, NAO, AMO, and PDO climate influences vs anthropogenic claims, about a dozen examining modern climate being in phase with natural variability...Volcanic influence, Cloud/aerosol influence, and about a dozen which question the CO2/radiative greenhouse effect as being a climate driver at all.

Or we can look at a couple of dozen on climate model unreliability, biases, and errors, a few on urban heat island effects artificially raising temperatures, a dozen or so on failing renewable energy climate policies, a dozen or so on the damage wind power is doing to the environment and biosphere, a couple of dozen on elevated CO2 increasing crop yields, about a dozen on polar bear populations not cooperating with alarmists claims, about a dozen on warming, and acidification not harming the ocean, a couple on coral bleaching being a natural, recurring phenomenon, about a dozen on no increasing trends in intense hurricanes, about a dozen on there being no increasing trend in drought or flood frequency and severity, a few on natural CO2 emissions being a net source, not a net sink, a couple on the decrease in global fire frequency as CO2 increases, a few on CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by more than a thousand years, a couple on global losses and deaths from weather disasters decreasing, about a half a dozen on there being no AGW changes to hydrological cycles being detectable, and some miscellaneous skeptical papers...

The fact is that the evidence that the consensus view of climate change is failing...at long last, actual evidence is coming out that demonstrates that the mainstream view is terribly flawed and in many cases and outright lie...

 

[Crick]

None of the three papers to which you linked suggest ANY changes to the currently accepted status of AGW. Period. If you're going to just make things up (like "lean towards no net warming") I will print the whole abstracts and show that you are lying.

If you have more or better examples of what you claim is now dominating published climate science, feel free to provide a few links.

 

[SSDD]

None of the three papers to which you linked suggest ANY changes to the currently accepted status of AGW. Period. If you're going to just make things up (like "lean towards no net warming") I will print the whole abstracts and show that you are lying.

If you have more or better examples of what you claim is now dominating published climate science, feel free to provide a few links.

Deny all you like...it is what you guys do..

 

[deanrd]

I don’t get Republicans at all. I know many have children. Why would they wanna leave their kids a dead and dying world? What do they think is going to happen to the kids?

 

[Crick]

I can only guess they believe money buys happiness.

 

[SSDD]

I don’t get Republicans at all. I know many have children. Why would they wanna leave their kids a dead and dying world? What do they think is going to happen to the kids?

I am very concerned about a plethora of genuine environmental issues...pollution, run off, poor land use, illegal dumping etc etc etc...but nothing is going to be done about them so long as the global warming scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers....think about what could actually be done with just a fraction of the 93 trillion dollars that climate science wants to flush down the toilet...

 

[Crick]

The problem, of course, is that you choose to deny AGW no matter what the experts make of the evidence. AGW is real and the cost of doing nothing will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of addressing the problem, in terms of money and LIVES.

And the sooner we get started, the less it will cost and the more will be left to address other issues. Put it off till it becomes a matter of life and death and there won't be a penny to spend to fix your shoes.

 

[SSDD]

The problem, of course, is that you choose to deny AGW no matter what the experts make of the evidence. AGW is real and the cost of doing nothing will be orders of magnitude higher than the cost of addressing the problem, in terms of money and LIVES.

Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which indicates that the climate we are presently experiencing is different from natural variability...If you can't do that, why should I believe that mankind is driving the climate?...and if man made climate change looks indistinguishable from natural variability, again, why should I worry?

And the sooner we get started, the less it will cost and the more will be left to address other issues. Put it off till it becomes a matter of life and death and there won't be a penny to spend to fix your shoes.

Billions upon billions upon billions have already been flushed down the toilet over the past 3 decades...exactly what environmental issue has climate science made better, and how have these billions and billions improved the climate?

 

[Crick]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch has single paragraphs with more empirical evidence than your "science" has accumulated in the last 30 years.

The money that has been spent on reducing our CO2 emissions, every penny of it, has been wisely invested. Doing nothing, as is ALWAYS the case with unpleasant problems, is the WORST and most COSTLY possible choice.