How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

PS: Researchgate does not require peer review

We know humans are causing global warming because GHGs are the primary cause of the warming observed for the past 150 years and, in particular, the last 50. Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping tells us that humans are the source of virtually every molecule of GHGs above pre-industrial levels.

nope!! failure. you need a new gig.

 

[jc456]

I demand you provide a study that proves through verified, certified, guaranteed, double-blind, secret-handshake, empircal observations with eyes and noses and tongues and ears that CO2 does not grow warmer when it absorbs IR radiation and that it cannot transfer thermal energy to other molecules via conduction and that photons refuse to travel from warm to cold and that our atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's magnetic field.

If you can't do that, then you must be a fucking

TROLL

the proof is that you can't post any that back your claim. denouncing yours is simple. you can't back it up. PROOF

 

[SSDD]

You've dug your well here when you decided to claim you were smarter than all the world's scientists put together.

Poor skidmark...to stupid to even know who is digging....you are the one who keeps digging...claiming that observed, measured evidence exists which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability when no such evidence ever did, or ever will exist...

You keep making the claim, and you keep failing to provide even one single shred of such evidence...you have dug so far that you aren't even visible down in that hole any more...you are just an angry disembodied voice calling up.."it's at the IPCC"...and we all know by now that it isn't there...if it were, you would have brought it long ago to shove in my face...all you are doing now is mewling from the bottom of a hole of your own making and I am still here standing at ground level shouting down in the hole that it doesn't exist and that you will never be able to produce it...

Thanks for making my case so eloquently for me...

 

[SSDD]

PS: Researchgate does not require peer review

We know humans are causing global warming because GHGs are the primary cause of the warming observed for the past 150 years and, in particular, the last 50. Isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping tells us that humans are the source of virtually every molecule of GHGs above pre-industrial levels.

nope!! failure. you need a new gig.

As sad as it is, it's the only gig he has...pitiful isn't it?

 

[Crick]

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half. Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature. If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.

A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic. Some are trolls. Some are liars. Some are sock puppets. Some see this as a political issue. Some are just extraordinarily ignorant. Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims. Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess. Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.

 

[jc456]

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half. Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature. If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[SSDD]

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

You are the proven liar here skidmark...and we all know it..

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half. Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature. If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.

Same old lie...what's the matter skidmark...not smart enough to come up with another one? We all know that there isn't a shred of observed, measured evidence there that supports the failed AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you are a big fat liar claiming that any such evidence exists anywhere....

Now run along and prove my point by not producing any such evidence.,,

You are at the top of the list who will feed people bad information...that steaming pile of shit you always reference isn't science...it is politics...and there is the first piece of observed measured evidence there that supports the claim that the present climate change we are experiencing is anything other than natural variability...

 

[Crick]

I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.

Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.

 

[Oddball]

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half. Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature. If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.

A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic. Some are trolls. Some are liars. Some are sock puppets. Some see this as a political issue. Some are just extraordinarily ignorant. Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims. Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess. Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.

 

[SSDD]

I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.

Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.

You know what skidmark....everyone invites you to bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability from that steaming pile the IPCC set up.....failing that, we all invite you to provide the title, author, and a link to a single paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

We invite you too provide some actual evidence to support your bullshit claims although we all know that you will decline the invitation because you know as well as we do that there is no actual evidence to support your bullshit claims. Failing that, we invite you to keep on telling the same old lie and we will continue to call you out on it....

You are a laughing stock skidmark...continually posting that bullshit link knowing that no one is going to visit because you can't even bring one piece of worthwhile data from it to demonstrate to people that it is worth visiting...

And my argument is that there is no observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and I invite everyone on the whole damned internet to visit AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC just to see for themselves that there isn't the first shred of observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...I invite everyone to go and see just how insubstantial the AGW hypothesis is...and how there is no observed, measured evidence to support it...and since you clearly can't find anything to support your claims, I invite everyone on the whole damned internet to go over there and find any such evidence and bring it back to shove in my face... Thanks for proving my argument daily skidmark...

 

[Crick]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy. Show us some evidence.

You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data. Show us some evidence.

Because so far, you have not

 

[jc456]

What we all know by now is that you do nothing here but lie and lie and lie and lie.

Global warming's primary cause is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 and CH4 emitted by human activities in the last century and a half. Evidence in large handfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch or any reasonable search of the scientific literature. If you want to see how widely accepted among scientists is the theory that the world is getting warmer and that humans are the cause, see Wikipedia's article on "Scientific Opinion at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia.

A number of people here on this forum will feed you bad information on this topic. Some are trolls. Some are liars. Some are sock puppets. Some see this as a political issue. Some are just extraordinarily ignorant. Look for folks that provide links to peer reviewed science journals and well known reference works to back up their claims. Look out for people providing NO substantiation for their contentions or backing up their claims with the work of political pundits, journalists and others claiming expertise they do not actually possess. Be skeptical of everyone here till they convince you with reliable data and good analyses.

who are you talking to?

 

[jc456]

I invite everyone here to open "The Physical Science Basis" at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC and make up your own mind whether it is science or politics.

Then, let us ask poster SSDD to provide some science references supporting HIS arguments.

what page what paragraph?

 

[Crick]

I am talking to the poster whose post immediately precedes mine and the only poster to have made the claims I address and is well known for having done so.

 

[skookerasbil]

JC.....ya know.....you lose because you don't stand in front of a glass pyramid like a hero!

 

[SSDD]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

Making up arguments to rail against again? Don't guess I can blame you...You clearly can't defend yourself against my actual argument.

I have said that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to bring forward a quote from me claiming that everything there is political. We both know that won't be happening...

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...

You sure are stupid...why can't you simply argue against what I say? Never mind...no defense that way...right? Got to make up something to argue against.

You yourself acknowledge that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere...and you decline to even attempt to show the description of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science acknowledging that those are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...and you know better than to even try to describe a radiative greenhouse effect in the context of such energy movement...

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position.. If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...

You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere. Show us some evidence.

I have provided evidence of heat due to compression on planets that have no greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmosphere, and are so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect as described climate science is not possible.

You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes. Show us some evidence.

I said that there is no study which seriously considered the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 production and depletion and dismissed them as irrelevant...you have proven my point by not being able to produce such a paper that seriously considers natural factors...and in science, when considering phenomenon in nature, the first order of actual science would be to completely eliminate natural factors before jumping to anthropogenic causes...that did't happen..all the papers on the topic jump straight to anthropogenic causes...claiming that a molecule that is present at 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive than natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million...and wild fluctuations in solar output in the very bands responsible for O3 production...

You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy. Show us some evidence.

Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...failing such evidence, exactly what is this so called consensus based on?

You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data. Show us some evidence.

The fact is that when regional temperature records are examined, only a few places on earth show any sort of warming trend....most show cooling, or no discernible trend at all...the "warming" signature only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record. If there were actually "global" warming, the warming would show up in regional records...all, or most regional records...and it doesn't...the global record is flawed beyond usefulness.

Because so far, you have not

Most of your arguments are made up and bear little to no resemblance to what I have said...that is because you are a bald faced liar...you proved my point in several by not being able to produce any sort of evidence that contradicted what I said, and the rest, I provided evidence to support my claims...

You are a liar and if you think there is any one on this board who isn't fully aware of it by now, you are even more stupid than I thought...

 

[SSDD]

I am talking to the poster whose post immediately precedes mine and the only poster to have made the claims I address and is well known for having done so.

You think you are the forum police now and can decide who speaks to you? You are a laughing stock...

 

[Crick]

No, dimwit. I was answering his fucking question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

Making up arguments to rail against again? Don't guess I can blame you...You clearly can't defend yourself against my actual argument.

I have said that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to bring forward a quote from me claiming that everything there is political. We both know that won't be happening...

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...

You sure are stupid...why can't you simply argue against what I say? Never mind...no defense that way...right? Got to make up something to argue against.

You yourself acknowledge that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere...and you decline to even attempt to show the description of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science acknowledging that those are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...and you know better than to even try to describe a radiative greenhouse effect in the context of such energy movement...

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position.. If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...

You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere. Show us some evidence.

I have provided evidence of heat due to compression on planets that have no greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmosphere, and are so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect as described climate science is not possible.

You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes. Show us some evidence.

I said that there is no study which seriously considered the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 production and depletion and dismissed them as irrelevant...you have proven my point by not being able to produce such a paper that seriously considers natural factors...and in science, when considering phenomenon in nature, the first order of actual science would be to completely eliminate natural factors before jumping to anthropogenic causes...that did't happen..all the papers on the topic jump straight to anthropogenic causes...claiming that a molecule that is present at 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive than natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million...and wild fluctuations in solar output in the very bands responsible for O3 production...

You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy. Show us some evidence.

Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...failing such evidence, exactly what is this so called consensus based on?

You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data. Show us some evidence.

The fact is that when regional temperature records are examined, only a few places on earth show any sort of warming trend....most show cooling, or no discernible trend at all...the "warming" signature only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record. If there were actually "global" warming, the warming would show up in regional records...all, or most regional records...and it doesn't...the global record is flawed beyond usefulness.

Because so far, you have not

Most of your arguments are made up and bear little to no resemblance to what I have said...that is because you are a bald faced liar...you proved my point in several by not being able to produce any sort of evidence that contradicted what I said, and the rest, I provided evidence to support my claims...

You are a liar and if you think there is any one on this board who isn't fully aware of it by now, you are even more stupid than I thought...

There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position.. If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...

The probability of a photon being emitted is the same as the probability of a photon being absorbed. That ensures that the second law cannot be violated. Yes, a hotter body can absorb a photon coming from a colder body, but you cannot prevent the hotter body to emit that photon again.

 

[Crick]

You've made the charge that every bit of TPSB is political. Show us some evidence.

Making up arguments to rail against again? Don't guess I can blame you...You clearly can't defend yourself against my actual argument.

I have said that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...feel free to bring forward a quote from me claiming that everything there is political. We both know that won't be happening...
[/quote]

A quote from your post #247 in this thread
"You are at the top of the list who will feed people bad information...that steaming pile of shit you always reference isn't science...it is politics."

You've claimed that there is no greenhouse effect. Show us some evidence.

I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...

The only portion of the greenhouse process that mandates radiative heat transfer is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere. Conductive transfer from the surface or within the atmosphere would have no wavelength-dependent component and thus the presence or absence of GHGs would be irrelevant.

You sure are stupid...why can't you simply argue against what I say? Never mind...no defense that way...right? Got to make up something to argue against.

So far, I (and several others) have successfully refute your contentions. That makes you the stupid one.

You yourself acknowledge that conduction and convection are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere.

ONE: air, even at one atm pressure, is a very poor conductor. TWO: conductive efficiency is pressure (ie, density) dependent and thus the higher we get, the less heat transfer occurs by conduction and the more by radiation. Convection, to a lesser degree, is also density dependent.

..and you decline to even attempt to show the description of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science

I have no problem showing you technical definitions of the greenhouse effect.

acknowledging that those are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...and you know better than to even try to describe a radiative greenhouse effect in the context of such energy movement...

You really seem to have a need to think you're feared. How incredibly pathetic.

As I explained above, it is the radiative transfer from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere that invokes the critical parameters of GHGs: an absorption/emission spectrum with strong IR components. That, and only that, is why the term "radiative" appears in the title.

You've claimed that photons will not travel from cold to warm. Show us some evidence.

There is no observation or measurement of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm precisely as the second law states...that supports my position..

The second law states no such thing. Your contention here violates Planck, Stefan-Boltzman, the conservation of energy and special relativity. But that doesn't bother you because you're a troll.

If you believe otherwise, by all means, provide a valid statement of the second law stating that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm...and some observed, measured evidence to support the claim...

The second law and the laws from which it was developed all deal with NET heat transfer.

You've claimed that the Earth is warmed by the gravitational compression of its atmosphere. Show us some evidence.

I have provided evidence of heat due to compression on planets that have no greenhouse gasses to speak of in their atmosphere, and are so far away from the sun that a greenhouse effect as described climate science is not possible.

No, you have not. You have tried, but those attempts have been plagued by errors and bad science. Planets are not heated by the gravitational compression of their atmospheres. Atmospheric gases moving down and being compressed by hydrostatic pressure and thus warming are exactly balanced by atmospheric gases moving upwards and cooling.

You've claimed that CFCs are not responsible for the polar ozone holes. Show us some evidence.

I said that there is no study which seriously considered the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 production and depletion and dismissed them as irrelevant...you have proven my point by not being able to produce such a paper that seriously considers natural factors...and in science, when considering phenomenon in nature, the first order of actual science would be to completely eliminate natural factors before jumping to anthropogenic causes...that did't happen..all the papers on the topic jump straight to anthropogenic causes...claiming that a molecule that is present at 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive than natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million...and wild fluctuations in solar output in the very bands responsible for O3 production...

As I have said to you several times now, the natural factors show no correlation with ozone depletion changes. Your contention is akin to saying we cannot know that drinking alcohol increases traffic accidents because we have not eliminated the possibility that it is caused by exposure to carbonated mixers or stale peanuts.

You've claimed that all climate scientists are joined in a massive and perfectly executed conspiracy. Show us some evidence.

Show me a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...failing such evidence, exactly what is this so called consensus based on?

It is not the consensus which is generally credited to the massive and perfect conspiracy but the fact that all the data support AGW. The charge is that they are either falsifying the data or keeping quiet about the falsified data. Your claim that there is no evidence is complete nonsense anyway, but doesn't address that insanity of suggesting that tens of thousands of scientists from all over the planet could be joined in a conspiracy of this magnitude with not a single one ever confessing or being caught.

You've claimed that all the climatic data holders have been fraudulently modifying historical data. Show us some evidence.

The fact is that when regional temperature records are examined, only a few places on earth show any sort of warming trend....most show cooling, or no discernible trend at all...the "warming" signature only shows up in the highly manipulated, homogenized, infilled global record. If there were actually "global" warming, the warming would show up in regional records...all, or most regional records...and it doesn't...the global record is flawed beyond usefulness.

That is absolute nonsense.

Global temperature changes from 1880 to 2015

Because so far, you have not

Most of your arguments are made up and bear little to no resemblance to what I have said.

I have demonstrated more than once that is false.

..that is because you are a bald faced liar...

Which makes you the liar

you proved my point in several by not being able to produce any sort of evidence that contradicted what I said, and the rest, I provided evidence to support my claims...

I have provided evidence to support every one of my claims. You have provided no evidence in most cases and in those few in which you did provide evidence, it failed to support your contention.

You are a liar and if you think there is any one on this board who isn't fully aware of it by now, you are even more stupid than I thought...

You are a liar and a troll.