How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[EMH]

You and ALL your photos are useless/STUPID.
No one is claiming more than a foot in the last hundred years, and tides vary at least 4' daily.
So unless you know at what stage the tides were, ALL you pictures are useLess.
`

To you all TRUTH is useLess...

All you do here is PARROT FUDGE and FRAUD.

NO OCEAN RISE because NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT.

 

[Grumblenuts]

NO OCEAN RISE because NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT.

Knock, knock, McFly:

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

HELLO?!

 

[EMH]

Knock, knock, McFly:

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

HELLO?!

DATA please...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

And we disagree so let's go to COURT....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

There is FUDGE and there is DATA. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt because your side is LYING about Antarctic ice growth and has all along...


Even IN COURT!!!

 

[abu afak]

And I agree.
I think Humans may be responsible for 150% of Global Warming, because the earth had been cooling leading up to the Industral revolution and population increase.


GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
13 December 2017 16:59

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans​

The extent of the human contribution to modern global warming is a hotly debated topic in political circles, particularly in the US.

During a recent congressional hearing, Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, remarked that “to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible”.

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

Here Carbon Brief examines how each of the major factors affecting the Earth’s climate would influence temperatures in isolation – and how their combined effects almost perfectly predict long-term changes in the global temperature.

Carbon Brief’s analysis finds that:

• Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
• If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
• Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
• Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.
• [............]

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

DATA please...

LOL. The satellite data is provided, current, and covers decades unlike your limited, outdated, manually collected 2015 results and that ancient NewsBusters crap, neither of which provide data, though I'm sure one could find some if they dug for it. But why bother?

Ad Fontes Media rates NewsBusters in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Problematic in terms of reliability. NewsBusters is a project of the Media Research Center, a nonprofit media watchdog. NewsBusters was launched in 2005 to "provide immediate exposure of national media bias, unfairness, inaccuracy, and occasional idiocy."

They supply tons of idiocy alright.

 

[EMH]

LOL. The satellite data is provided, current, and covers decades unlike your limited, outdated, manually collected 2015 results and that ancient NewsBusters crap, neither of which provide data, though I'm sure one could find some if they dug for it. But why bother?

They supply tons of idiocy alright.

That is NASA Antarctic data and a BRITISH COURT ruling.

And you are a big liar who doesn't understand jack.

The claim that Antarctica is "melting" is missing one thing - liquid water... DUH...

WHERE IS THE LIQUID WATER ON ANTARCTICA?

 

[Grumblenuts]

WHERE IS THE LIQUID WATER ON ANTARCTICA?

Moving your pole posts already? I thought you said:

NO OCEAN RISE because NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT.

Seems:

All you do here is PARROT FUDGE and FRAUD.

Did I capitalize enough letters?

 

[EMH]

Moving your pole posts already? I thought you said:

Seems:

Did I capitalize enough letters?

You are an IQ under 5 moron arguing a 40+ million year old continent specific ice age centered on a pole is "melting."

Missing = liquid water

To have melting requires liquid water. Since you have none on Antarctica, you spazz...

Typical...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I agree.
I think Humans may be responsible for 150% of Global Warming, because the earth had been cooling leading up to the Industral revolution and population increase.


GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
13 December 2017 16:59

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans​

The extent of the human contribution to modern global warming is a hotly debated topic in political circles, particularly in the US.

During a recent congressional hearing, Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, remarked that “to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible”.

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

Here Carbon Brief examines how each of the major factors affecting the Earth’s climate would influence temperatures in isolation – and how their combined effects almost perfectly predict long-term changes in the global temperature.

Carbon Brief’s analysis finds that:

• Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
• If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
• Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
• Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.
• [............]

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

`

Excellent!
Ice ages are REALLY BAD.

 

[EMH]

Excellent!
Ice ages are REALLY BAD.

Without the two continent specific ice ages today Earth would be 25-50F warmer, surface air pressure would be up to 50% higher, we'd have Cat 10 canes, and we'd be dealing with snakes 80 feet long, sharks 60 feet long, and alligators 50 feet long...


So, ICE AGES are not bad unless you had a house that is now under 600 layers of ice like the Vikings Greenland "homes" are now...

 

[abu afak]

You are an IQ under 5 moron arguing a 40+ million year old continent specific ice age centered on a pole is "melting."
Missing = liquid water
To have melting requires liquid water. Since you have none on Antarctica, you spazz...

Typical...

All you need to turn ice into water is heat.
Which we increasingly have.
`

 

[EMH]

All you need to turn ice into water is heat.
Which we increasingly have.
`

Show us all the "liquid water" on Antarctica....

 

[abu afak]

Show us all the "liquid water" on Antarctica....

Not that it makes or breaks the warming issue but...

"liquid water" on Antarctica - Google Search

www.google.com

`

 

[ReinyDays]

Not that it makes or breaks the warming issue but...

"liquid water" on Antarctica - Google Search

www.google.com

`

I was going to suggest the entire Southern Ocean is made of liquid water ... but your idea works too ...

 

[ding]

Not that it makes or breaks the warming issue but...

"liquid water" on Antarctica - Google Search

www.google.com

`

The planet is in an interglacial period. The sky is not falling.

 

[abu afak]

The planet is in an interglacial period. The sky is not falling.

Your 1000x repeated meaning less claim that doesn't go to the issue at hand: The sharp spike of AGW over the I-Rev period Within the interglacial.

The vacuous claim of a know-nothing idiot/You.

`

 

[ding]

Your 1000x repeated meaning less claim. that doesn't go to the issue at hand: The sharp spike of AGW over the I-Rev period.

The vacuous claim of a know-nothing idiot/You.

`

The models the IPCC relies on attribute 2/3rds of future warming to water vapor and only 1/3 due to the radiative forcing of CO2.

Their models are wrong.

 

[ding]

Your 1000x repeated meaning less claim that doesn't go to the issue at hand: The sharp spike of AGW over the I-Rev period within the interglacial.

The vacuous claim of a know-nothing idiot/You.

`

Crossplot CO2 with temperature.

 

[ding]

How can crossplotting CO2 with temperature be fake news? It's just data.

 

[ding]

abu afak do you even know what crossplotting is? Or why it is done?