How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

OP... Link One:



CLIMATE

How We Know Today’s Climate Change Is Not Natural​

APRIL 4, 2017
[.......]
[.......]
"..Here is how scientists know that the climate change we are experiencing is mainly due to human activity and not a result of natural phenomenon.

Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that scientists look at a lot of different things at once.

“We have a very, very clear understanding that the amount of heat in the ocean is increasing—the ocean heat content is going up by a lot,” said Schmidt. “That implies that there must be an external change in the radiation budget of the earth—more energy has to be going in than leaving.

“There are a number of ways that can happen, but each of them has a different fingerprint. If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.”

Moreover, according to the World Radiation Center, the sun’s radiation has not increased since at least 1978 (when satellite monitoring began) though global temperatures over the last 30 years have continued to rise.


In addition, the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which is absorbing the CO2 and expanding as it gets warmer, is pushing the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere upwards. If the sun’s radiation were the main factor responsible for Earth’s warming, both atmosphere layers would likely be warming and this would not occur.

Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.

Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life, studies deep-sea sediments to understand past climate change.


“Ocean sediments provide a longer term baseline [tens of millions of years] that allows you to compare the past with the present, giving you an idea of how variable ocean temperatures have been before we had thermometers,” said de Menocal. “Over the last 2,000 years, there have been natural climate variations, but they were not especially large…the Medieval Warm period around 1,000 years ago, and the little ice age which was three separate cooling periods lasting a few decades each, beginning around 1300 to around the 1850s. It’s the warming after the 1850s that’s been really remarkable and unique over the last couple of millennia—you can see that in the sediment cores.”

Photo: unlu1

Photo: unlu1
Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 Times Faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.
(abu afak: IOW Ding, it is NOT "Normal Interglacial."


To understand this rapid change in climate, scientists look at data sets and climate models to try to reproduce the changes that have already been observed. When scientists input only natural phenomena such as the sun’s intensity, changes in the Earth’s orbit and ocean circulation, the models cannot reproduce the changes that have occurred so far.

“We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see,” said Schmidt. “If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” In other words, only when the emissions from human activity are included, are the models and data sets able to accurately reproduce the warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that is occurring.

“Today, almost 100% [plus or minus 20%] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” said de Menocal.

Record shattering heat in 2015 Photo: NASA

Record shattering heat in 2015 Photo: NASA
Findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies show clearly how much natural and manmade factors contribute to global warming.

Climate deniers offer a variety of bases for their skepticism without providing scientific evidence. The most effective thing that the climate denier community has done, however, is to spread the notion of uncertainty about climate change, and use it as an excuse not to take any action.

“It’s been a very effective tactic,” said de Menocal, “in part because the scientific community spends a tremendous amount of effort quantifying that uncertainty. And so we make it plain as day that there are things we’re certain about, and things we’re uncertain about. There are places of debate that exist in the community. That’s the scientific process. … The deniers are not selling a new way of looking at the problem, they’re selling doubt, and it’s very easy to manufacture doubt.”

“They are in total denial of the evidence that there is,” said Schmidt. “When I challenge them to produce evidence for their attributions, all I get is crickets. There’s no actual quantitative evidence that demonstrates anything. … Show me the data, show me your analysis.”

“There are lot of things that we’re absolutely certain about,” said de Menocal. “We’re absolutely certain carbon dioxide is rising in the atmosphere. We’re absolutely certain it’s warming the planet and we’re absolutely certain that it’s acidifying the oceans.”

`
 
Last edited:
Are you in the habit of playing this stupid ?


You clearly are. There once was an ice sheet over the area where Chicago exists today.

What caused it to melt?
 
Here is how scientists know that the climate change we are experiencing is mainly due to human activity and not a result of natural phenomenon.

Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that scientists look at a lot of different things at once.

“We have a very, very clear understanding that the amount of heat in the ocean is increasing—the ocean heat content is going up by a lot,” said Schmidt. “That implies that there must be an external change in the radiation budget of the earth—more energy has to be going in than leaving.

“There are a number of ways that can happen, but each of them has a different fingerprint. If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.”

Moreover, according to the World Radiation Center, the sun’s radiation has not increased since at least 1978 (when satellite monitoring began) though global temperatures over the last 30 years have continued to rise.

In addition, the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which is absorbing the CO2 and expanding as it gets warmer, is pushing the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere upwards. If the sun’s radiation were the main factor responsible for Earth’s warming, both atmosphere layers would likely be warming and this would not occur.

Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.

Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life, studies deep-sea sediments to understand past climate change.

Ocean sediment cores from the West Atlantic

Ocean sediment cores from the West Atlantic
“Ocean sediments provide a longer term baseline [tens of millions of years] that allows you to compare the past with the present, giving you an idea of how variable ocean temperatures have been before we had thermometers,” said de Menocal. “Over the last 2,000 years, there have been natural climate variations, but they were not especially large…the Medieval Warm period around 1,000 years ago, and the little ice age which was three separate cooling periods lasting a few decades each, beginning around 1300 to around the 1850s. It’s the warming after the 1850s that’s been really remarkable and unique over the last couple of millennia—you can see that in the sediment cores.”

Photo: unlu1

Photo: unlu1
Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.

To understand this rapid change in climate, scientists look at data sets and climate models to try to reproduce the changes that have already been observed. When scientists input only natural phenomena such as the sun’s intensity, changes in the Earth’s orbit and ocean circulation, the models cannot reproduce the changes that have occurred so far.

“We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see,” said Schmidt. “If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” In other words, only when the emissions from human activity are included, are the models and data sets able to accurately reproduce the warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that is occurring.

“Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” said de Menocal.

Record shattering heat in 2015 Photo: NASA

Record shattering heat in 2015 Photo: NASA
Findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies show clearly how much natural and manmade factors contribute to global warming.

Climate deniers offer a variety of bases for their skepticism without providing scientific evidence. The most effective thing that the climate denier community has done, however, is to spread the notion of uncertainty about climate change, and use it as an excuse not to take any action.

“It’s been a very effective tactic,” said de Menocal, “in part because the scientific community spends a tremendous amount of effort quantifying that uncertainty. And so we make it plain as day that there are things we’re certain about, and things we’re uncertain about. There are places of debate that exist in the community. That’s the scientific process. … The deniers are not selling a new way of looking at the problem, they’re selling doubt, and it’s very easy to manufacture doubt.”

“They are in total denial of the evidence that there is,” said Schmidt. “When I challenge them to produce evidence for their attributions, all I get is crickets. There’s no actual quantitative evidence that demonstrates anything. … Show me the data, show me your analysis.”

“There are lot of things that we’re absolutely certain about,” said de Menocal. “We’re absolutely certain carbon dioxide is rising in the atmosphere. We’re absolutely certain it’s warming the planet and we’re absolutely certain that it’s acidifying the oceans.”
"We're absolutely certain, we just can't provide EMPIRICAL data to support our assertions!"
 
Over Chicago ? Nowhere in any history books has there any indication there was a ice sheet over Chicago. It was incorporated in 1833. No ice sheet.
Hahaha hahaha

Why did the temperatures increase? You still dancing Elton
 
Last edited:
You clearly are. There once was an ice sheet over the area where Chicago exists today.

What caused it to melt?
You gave in to that stupid fk. He can eat shit from me. No satisfaction coming from me. Obtuse is who he defines as
 
Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 Times Faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages,

That sounds pretty serious!

Post the top ten "speeds", so we can see just how much faster it is this time.

Thanks!!!

Come on Sandy, don't be such a pussy abu afak
 
Last edited:
I'm not.
But as I've posted many times... CO2 CONTROLS Water Vapor FIRST.
That's why CO2 is the issue/what we Have spewed into the Atmo and can lower.

So Ding Has NOW ADMITTED GHG's, including secondarily Water Vapor, Do control the Temperature.


More elaborately:


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


`
Nothing fake about what I said. And, your disagreement means nothing. You are just upset that the mob is being challenged. And, we won't fall in line quietly to all the falsehoods the left throws out there.
 
You gave in to that stupid fk. He can eat shit from me. No satisfaction coming from me. Obtuse is who he defines as
That’s not what you said. Show proof any ice sheet existed anywhere. I’ll agree you lied about Chicago. Where is the empirical data for this ice sheet ?
 
Last edited:
You clearly are. There once was an ice sheet over the area where Chicago exists today.

What caused it to melt?
So you’re saying it was over where Chicago is now, right ?
Gee, that’s not very big. You got proof.
Chicago is only 230 plus square miles.
When was this tiny ice sheet ? Where are the pictures / proof that it ever existed ? I need to see EMPIRICAL DATA !
 
"We're absolutely certain, we just can't provide EMPIRICAL data to support our assertions!"
You can’t supply ANY data that there was an ice sheet over Chicago or where Chicago was, which was 230 square miles.
Tell us WHEN this occurred !
 
You gave in to that stupid fk. He can eat shit from me. No satisfaction coming from me. Obtuse is who he defines as
You couldn’t be talking about me. You made a claim. I’m just asking for empirical data to back up your assertion there was an ice sheet over Chicago, now or at any time. And why wasn’t there an ice sheet just over Chicago ? You want to discus something that melted and you can’t even prove it existed. You are a bullshitter. Me Obtuse ? You’re out of your mind.
 
Last edited:
Obtuse is who he defines as
I’m obtuse ?
You clearly are. There once was an ice sheet over the area where Chicago exists today.
Yup just checking, “over the area where Chicago exists today.”
230 square mile ice sheet. That’s the area where Chicago exists today. Still need some kind of proof of this 230 square mile ice sheet. Got any ?
 
The ice sheet over Chicago! Are you denying that?
Never heard of an ice sheet over Chicago. Show proof. Chicago was incorporated In 1830 and there has never been an ice sheet coving Chicago
 
Last edited:
I’m obtuse ?

Yup just checking, “over the area where Chicago exists today.”
230 square mile ice sheet. That’s the area where Chicago exists today. Still need some kind of proof of this 230 square mile ice sheet. Got any ?




Ahhhhhhh, you're one of those religious nutjobs that thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old!

That explains EVERYTHING.

Goodbye, fruitloop.
 
Ahhhhhhh, you're one of those religious nutjobs that thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old!

That explains EVERYTHING.

Goodbye, fruitloop.
Is that your proof that Chicago had 230 square mile ice sheet ? So it’s just your made up shit that you want to discuss.
 
Is that your proof that Chicago had 230 square mile ice sheet ? So it’s just your made up shit that you want to discuss.


No, 15,000 years ago, the land that currently supports Chicago was under a 2 mile thick sheet of ice.

This is well known history.

What caused that to melt?
 

Forum List

Back
Top