How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Wuwei]

I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

I have never redefined science nor it's definitions. You are doing the tired troll trick of lying while blaming others for the very same thing you do. You are the primary person here for redefining thermodynamics and you know it.

.

.

 

[baileyn45]

Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..

There is a wide range of temperatures that allow people and other life to survive on earth. There is no specific "ideal" temperature within that range.

What people are concerned with is the high rate of change of average temperature. When the change is slow the generations can adapt to it. Centuries ago the smaller populations could easily adapt.

Now there are around 7 billion people. A rapid adaptation is not as feasible. There are dense populations in areas that could be affected. A quick adaptation would be chaotic and expensive. A huge population is on coastlines. Farm areas will have to change. Global chaos is never good.

The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?

I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal? i can't get an answer, from anyone.

 

[SSDD]

I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

I have never redefined science nor it's definitions. You are doing the tired troll trick of lying while blaming others for the very same thing you do. You are the primary person here for redefining thermodynamics and you know it.

.

.

Of course you do...whenever it calls your faith into question...

 

[SSDD]

Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..

There is a wide range of temperatures that allow people and other life to survive on earth. There is no specific "ideal" temperature within that range.

What people are concerned with is the high rate of change of average temperature. When the change is slow the generations can adapt to it. Centuries ago the smaller populations could easily adapt.

Now there are around 7 billion people. A rapid adaptation is not as feasible. There are dense populations in areas that could be affected. A quick adaptation would be chaotic and expensive. A huge population is on coastlines. Farm areas will have to change. Global chaos is never good.

The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?

I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal? i can't get an answer, from anyone.

These guys don't operate on any sort of logic...some of them know that climate change is a political narrative and some are just useful idiots...you can determine which one they are by the content of their posts.

 

[Wuwei]

The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?

I have no idea what the temperature will be, but many are concerned about a high rate of change. Google earth temperature history and click on images. You will find many that show a rapid rise since 1810. There are many sites giving explanations of how temperatures are measured.

I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal? i can't get an answer, from anyone.

For god's sake do not try to get an answer from a forum like this. You will find lots of threads of everyone calling each other idiots and dupes. The issue is very polarized.


.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

I have never redefined science nor it's definitions. You are doing the tired troll trick of lying while blaming others for the very same thing you do. You are the primary person here for redefining thermodynamics and you know it.

Of course you do...whenever it calls your faith into question...

Really? Where have I redefined science? I go by what is in journals, textbooks, and university lectures. You deny black body radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics in general.

.

 

[Wuwei]

These guys don't operate on any sort of logic...some of them know that climate change is a political narrative and some are just useful idiots...you can determine which one they are by the content of their posts.

@ baileyn45 See what I mean about the narrative always turning into insults. Also politics.

 

[Ropey]

 

[SSDD]

I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

I have never redefined science nor it's definitions. You are doing the tired troll trick of lying while blaming others for the very same thing you do. You are the primary person here for redefining thermodynamics and you know it.

Of course you do...whenever it calls your faith into question...

Really? Where have I redefined science? I go by what is in journals, textbooks, and university lectures. You deny black body radiation, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics in general.

.

To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.

 

[Wuwei]

To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.

Thank you, but really I can't take credit for two way energy flow of radiation. The credit belongs to scientists starting with Stefan himself to Albert Einstein. Also every text book and lecture that discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in detail assumes two way flow. Nothing else makes sense in physics.

Your one way energy flow violates Planck's black body radiation law, the second law of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

You said "on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up". What other things did I "make up" that disagrees with science?

.

 

[SSDD]

To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.

Thank you, but really I can't take credit for two way energy flow of radiation. The credit belongs to scientists starting with Stefan himself to Albert Einstein. Also every text book and lecture that discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in detail assumes two way flow. Nothing else makes sense in physics.

Your one way energy flow violates Planck's black body radiation law, the second law of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

You said "on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up". What other things did I "make up" that disagrees with science?

.

And still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence...oh the tedium..

 

[Wuwei]

To begin with you claimed that the SB law described two way energy flow...even though the equations do no such thing...and on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up to try and support your faith in unobservable unmeasurable untestable mathematical models.

Thank you, but really I can't take credit for two way energy flow of radiation. The credit belongs to scientists starting with Stefan himself to Albert Einstein. Also every text book and lecture that discusses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in detail assumes two way flow. Nothing else makes sense in physics.

Your one way energy flow violates Planck's black body radiation law, the second law of thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics.

You said "on and on and on...simply making up whatever you need to make up". What other things did I "make up" that disagrees with science?

.

And still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence...oh the tedium..

Not true. There was much observed two way radiation that satisfies the second law. If you find this so tedious, why do you keep torturing yourself by posting fake science?

You said I go on and on making up science. Please list all the science you think I make up? You already know that your science is self-contradictory.


.

 

[abu afak]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

Fallacious BS.
I don't need obvious STRAWMAN "ALL".
That's just a laughable chaallenge for every bitty bit of anything that causes climate change.

And it's an excuse for NOT dealing with the Four.

`

Poor Abu fak fak...

You can't win on anything.. That's what happens when you rely on talking points from Skeptical Shit Science.

Tell me, how the CO2 level changed over the last 14,000 years without man causing it and in very near terms as today's levels..

LOFL Denier boy!
Stomata is a Much Less reliable way to measure CO2 than air pockets ln Atmosphere Ice Cores.
You Clowns are just full of DISHONEST novelties/anomalies.

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels
Link to this page
What the science says...
Stomatal data is Not as direct as ice core measurements and hence Not as precise.

Climate Myth...
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
"When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores." (David Middleton)

Shortly after F. Wagner published his stomatal results (here), a response appeared in Science. The key difference in the result can be seen in the figure:

This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are Direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an Indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. ...."

````

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

Fallacious BS.
I don't need obvious STRAWMAN "ALL".
That's just a laughable chaallenge for every bitty bit of anything that causes climate change.

And it's an excuse for NOT dealing with the Four.

`

Poor Abu fak fak...

You can't win on anything.. That's what happens when you rely on talking points from Skeptical Shit Science.

Tell me, how the CO2 level changed over the last 14,000 years without man causing it and in very near terms as today's levels..

LOFL Denier boy!
Stomata is a Much Less reliable way to measure CO2 than air pockets ln Atmosphere Ice Cores.
You Clowns are just full of DISHONEST novelties/anomalies.

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels
Link to this page
What the science says...
Stomatal data is Not as direct as ice core measurements and hence Not as precise.

Climate Myth...
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
"When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores." (David Middleton)

Shortly after F. Wagner published his stomatal results (here), a response appeared in Science. The key difference in the result can be seen in the figure:

This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are Direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an Indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. ...."

````

Poor Abu Fak Fak.... You link to an opinion piece by a left wing alarmist... IT also does not mention that other factors were used to determine water content for the study. SO this is propaganda at its worst.. You omit facts because you do not understand the sciecne.. Priceless to the last..

 

[baileyn45]

The problem is you cannot show a "high rate of change". You, nor anyone else, can give a rational, logical explanation of how the average temp of the planet is figured today. And this is going to be compared to the past?

I have no idea what the temperature will be, but many are concerned about a high rate of change. Google earth temperature history and click on images. You will find many that show a rapid rise since 1810. There are many sites giving explanations of how temperatures are measured.

I keep going into these "environmental" threads and asking the same question. What could possibly convince you that the planet is warming? Longterm. CO2? The planet warms, it cools. What convinces you that any warming experienced since the end of the LIA makes you think this isn't normal? i can't get an answer, from anyone.

For god's sake do not try to get an answer from a forum like this. You will find lots of threads of everyone calling each other idiots and dupes. The issue is very polarized.


.

Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising?

As far as how temps are measured, I've spent a lot of time looking into that and quite frankly I'm appalled. While we have decent coverage of the ocean surface now, we have nothing to compare it to historically. The land based system is quite frankly a joke. The amount of data that is basically invented, or as they like to say "extrapolated", is astounding. I've seen NOAA maps where half of the land mass has no actual data points. Then the data is "homogenized" which brings in a whole host of other issues. I just can't see how it can be credible.

Another issue is using ground temps. Listening to an interview with a planetary scientist, she made the point that when studying temps of planets with an atmosphere, they have no interest in ground temps. They seek data from the heart of the atmosphere. On Earth that's something like 5-7 km up. The sat and weather balloon data of that part of the troposphere tell a completely different story than the ground temps.

 

[abu afak]

Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising?

As far as how temps are measured, I've spent a lot of time looking into that and quite frankly I'm appalled. While we have decent coverage of the ocean surface now, we have nothing to compare it to historically. The land based system is quite frankly a joke. The amount of data that is basically invented, or as they like to say "extrapolated", is astounding. I've seen NOAA maps where half of the land mass has no actual data points. Then the data is "homogenized" which brings in a whole host of other issues. I just can't see how it can be credible.

Another issue is using ground temps. Listening to an interview with a planetary scientist, she made the point that when studying temps of planets with an atmosphere, they have no interest in ground temps. They seek data from the heart of the atmosphere. On Earth that's something like 5-7 km up. The sat and weather balloon data of that part of the troposphere tell a completely different story than the ground temps.

Uh, yeah!
The Warming, and it's acceleration, especially in the last 50 years, does Correlate with the Industrial Revolution (150 years) and especially the accelerating increase (and CO2) in the last 50, even 20 years.
And btw the temps ARE avg Not just land.
You make up up alot of **** in your warpo narrative.
`

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Think about it, the planet came out of the LIA in roughly 1850 and we saw rapid warming. I don't see how that is surprising. At the same time CO2 levels didn't accelerate much until 1950. The question becomes what caused the warming for the 100 years before CO2 rising?

As far as how temps are measured, I've spent a lot of time looking into that and quite frankly I'm appalled. While we have decent coverage of the ocean surface now, we have nothing to compare it to historically. The land based system is quite frankly a joke. The amount of data that is basically invented, or as they like to say "extrapolated", is astounding. I've seen NOAA maps where half of the land mass has no actual data points. Then the data is "homogenized" which brings in a whole host of other issues. I just can't see how it can be credible.

Another issue is using ground temps. Listening to an interview with a planetary scientist, she made the point that when studying temps of planets with an atmosphere, they have no interest in ground temps. They seek data from the heart of the atmosphere. On Earth that's something like 5-7 km up. The sat and weather balloon data of that part of the troposphere tell a completely different story than the ground temps.

Uh, yeah!
The Warming, and it's acceleration, especially in the last 50 years, does Correlate with the Industrial Revolution (150 years) and especially the accelerating increase (and CO2) in the last 50, even 20 years.
And btw the temps ARE avg Not just land.
You make up up alot of **** in your warpo narrative.
`

`

And yet Ice Cores show us your rapid rise has been seen many times before... Correlation does not mean causation.... Again your appeal to correlations are improper as there are other causes that we simply do not understand that have caused these warming periods in the past you and your ilk have failed to rule out.

 

[Confounding]

rapid rise has been seen many times

At the same rate?

Global Warming

The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

We know that because Al Gore said so.

 

[SSDD]

rapid rise has been seen many times

At the same rate?

Global Warming

The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

It's all models all the time with you guys...that's because you have no actual evidence to support your beliefs. The fact is that in just the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when the temperature changed much more than any change we have seen, and in a much shorter time.

The gold standards in temperature reconstructions are derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from Greenland and the Vostok ice cores taken from Antarctica.

Both show temperature increases that are both larger than any we have seen and that they happened at a far faster rate than anything we have seen...similar changes are seen in both the arctic and antarctic along the same time lines indicating that the temperate changes were global in nature.

So yes...there have been multiple periods in just the past 10,000 years where the temperature changed more, and at a much faster rate than the mild temperature change we have seen. The actual data simply don't jibe with the story that your alarmist "scientists" are telling.

And by the way...your alarmist "scientists" are showing a graph derived from proxy records with an instrumental record attached on the end...incredibly deceptive and dishonest...but then, they don't bother to tell you how unethical that sort of thing is....and how it is being used to dupe useful idiots and support an alarmist narrative.