How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll have to look. Not sure I saved it.

You don't have to believe it. I'm cool with that. Are you?

I'm cool with all your imagined science.

Let me know when you find it.

 

[ding]

I'm cool with all your imagined science.

Let me know when you find it.

I'm cool with you thinking that about it too. I'm satisfied with the record of our conversation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm cool with you thinking that about it too. I'm satisfied with the record of our conversation.

No kidding.

A new species is a single mutation away.

You should publish.

 

[ding]

No kidding.

A new species is a single mutation away.

You should publish.

It's already out there.

I guess you weren't good with it after all.

Are we done yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's already out there.

New species from one mutation?

That's your silliest claim yet.

Are we done yet?

I doubt it.

 

[ding]

New species from one mutation?

That's your silliest claim yet.

Are we done yet?

I doubt it.

That's because you can criticize what you don't believe without ever actually stating what you do believe for like forever. It doesn't require defining what something is which is harder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's because you can criticize what you don't believe without ever actually stating what you do believe for like forever. It doesn't require defining what something is which is harder.

Tell me more about identical mutations appearing multiple times, simultaneously.
And the food one.
And stress.
Man, you should write for late night.
That's some funny shit right there.

 

[ding]

^he mad

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm laughing.

 

[ding]

I can tell by how hard you are pursuing this.

 

[abu afak]

ding said:
And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.

AGAIN:
I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`

 

[abu afak]

AGAIN:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

`

 

[ding]

AGAIN:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

`

Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they consider.

 

[ding]

AGAIN:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

""...The increase between the year 1800 and today is 70% larger than the increase that occurred when Earth climbed out of the last ice age between 17,500 and 11,500 years ago, and it occurred 100-200 times faster.

In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."...""
`

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans? | NOAA Climate.gov​

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

`

 

[ding]

I'm glad grumblenuts can appreciate how funny it is that our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 602239

Given the age of homo sapiens and of human culture with infrastructure, here is a far more pertinent dataset:

And before arguing that the current warming is not unprecedented in its rapidity, I suggest you read the article and its discussion of the import of actual climate sensitivity.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm glad grumblenuts can appreciate how funny it is that our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.

I can appreciate both how desperate one must be to keep posting that animated crap chart and how stupid one must be to convince themself that the current global temperature anomaly has remained that low.

 

[ding]

Given the age of homo sapiens and of human culture with infrastructure, here is a far more pertinent dataset:

View attachment 602375

And before arguing that the current warming is not unprecedented in its rapidity, I suggest you read the article and its discussion of the import of actual climate sensitivity.

That's hilarious. The beauty of that prediction is that it will be so easy to see how wrong it really was.

 

[ding]

I can appreciate both how desperate one must be to keep posting that animated crap chart and how stupid one must be to convince themself that the current global temperature anomaly has remained that low.

Desperate? It's actually quite fun. Desperate would be more like what true believers like yourself feel when global carbon emissions increase every year by 1 billion tons.

Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.

So your wish that things not be as they are is fulfilled by your speculations about what will come. How perfectly circular and distracting of you as usual. Bubbye again.