How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Grumblenuts]

And that means, exactly, what?

Don't sweat it. ding distracts for attention. Best to virtually pat his head and move on.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Again, the reason you know about any of the past earth's climate changes is because of the same research that tells us that the current warming is best explained by human activity.

I’m on your side for a different reason. If screaming burning oil is causing climate change, causes us to stop using fossil fuels then great, the ultimate outcome will be the same.

The world is running out of oil. We have two options—

• Wait until we burn up all the oil and a great world panic ensues.
• Start switching to renewables in a safe and timely manner

Summary Table as of 2017
Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
Oil Consumption
35,442,913,090
barrels per year
97,103,871 barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption
47 (years left)
World Oil Statistics - Worldometer
What do you believe we should do-?
Wait, I will be dead in 47 years, so why should I care?
-

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I’m on your side for a different reason. If screaming burning oil is causing climate change, causes us to stop using fossil fuels then great, the ultimate outcome will be the same.

The world is running out of oil. We have two options—

• Wait until we burn up all the oil and a great world panic ensues.
• Start switching to renewables in a safe and timely manner

Summary Table as of 2017

Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
Oil Consumption
35,442,913,090
barrels per year
97,103,871 barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption
47 (years left)
World Oil Statistics - Worldometer
What do you believe we should do-?
Wait, I will be dead in 47 years, so why should I care?
-

I think both things can be true and motivate for their separate reasons. I have seen the concept of "peak oil" come and go and come and go, but no matter how close or how far we are from peak, there will be one. There has to be one. We will run out some day.

And the end won't be pretty either. What we'll do is start spending more to get "lower quality" hits for the oil and we'll take more risks (like the damage that is possible to do to aquifers from extraction of tar sands and oil sands) until we have exhausted our search for the stuff we were used to. It's going to be pretty nasty.

And even worse if the climate is also messing with our economies and societies causing massive economic upheaval.

I've (hopefully) got less than 47 more years here, but we have the luxury to not have to live through what we are damning future generations to.

 

[watchingfromafar]

This is the best video I’ve seen on the subject.

I wish I had seen your video before I started posting on this subject. If I had seen it first, I would have shut up.

For one, I thank you for posting it.

-

 

[jc456]

In even the shortest of long runs, climate is a global characteristic. And what is this "you never answer" bullshit? I have never been asked this question before and I am answering it. Waiting two-and-a-half hours at dinnertime and then claiming I'm unresponsive is pretty fucked up.

I’ve asked for five years. You still didn’t answer

 

[jc456]

. We will run out some day.

When?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

When?

Not a clue.

 

[ding]

I wish I had seen your video before I started posting on this subject. If I had seen it first, I would have shut up.

For one, I thank you for posting it.

-

I’ve gone back and forth on the subject. The conditions which led to the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today; Polar regions isolated from warm marine currents and their respective threshold for extensive continental glaciation.

 

[abu afak]

I've asked before, where has climate changed in your lifetime?

Earth.

"Ignore" (or just "Swat") jc456.
He's a 5 word no-content fly.
`

 

[jc456]

"Ignore" (or just "Swat") jc456.
He's a 5 word no-content fly.
`

And you can’t say where climate changed. It seems you have no fking clue what climate is

 

[Crick]

And you can’t say where climate changed. It seems you have no fking clue what climate is

I gave you the correct answer. How about you just fuck off jc. I've had you on Ignore all this while and have been manually opening your posts to see if you'd got any less stupid in your old age. I see I've once more wasted my time. Buh-bye.

 

[ReinyDays]

What do I have to post about you to get put on your ignore list? ...

 

[BackAgain]

How do we “know”? Maybe we don’t! Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

 

[Meister]

Not a clue.

Use your math

 

[abu afak]

How do we “know”? Maybe we don’t! Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

:^)
You copied the Headline of another thread.
Genius at work.
You are a 100% NO CONTENT partisan Troll/hostile.
It was debunked in post # 78 of that thread as follows:

"Flawed Reasoning: ​

The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​

​

The paper should not be relied upon.​

​

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:​

(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.​

(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).​

(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).​

(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.​

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.​

(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).​

​

​

​

​

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming​

​

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...​

climatefeedback.org​

​

Seems your "bombshell study" was not published and has some serious flaws.""​

- - - -

:^)
Now what?

`

 

[BackAgain]

LOL
You copied the Headline of another thread.
Genius at work.
You are a 100% NO CONTENT partisan Troll/hostile.
It was debunked in post # 78 of that thread as follows:

​

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.​

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.​

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.​

​

The paper should not be relied upon.​

​

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:​

(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.​

(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).​

(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).​

(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.​

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.​

(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).​

​

​

​

Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming​

Warming related to human activities is estimated to be around 1°C over the past century. This document claims to overturn decades of scientific findings but provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global...​

climatefeedback.org​

​

Seems your "bombshell study" was not published and has some serious flaws.​

Now what?

`

Yes. You figured out that the link was to another thread! I couldn’t be more proud of you if you were intelligent.

 

[abu afak]

Yes. You figured out that the link was to another thread! I couldn’t be more proud of you if you were intelligent.

No answer as to it being a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS.
You remain a ZERO content cheerleader in this thread/Section.... as is Meister! who just Emptily HarrASSed a serious and meaty poster in the thread with a three word troll.
The empty Right on Full Display.
`

 

[BackAgain]

No answer as to it being a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS.
You remain a ZERO content cheerleader in this thread/Section.... as is Meister! who just Emptily HarrASSed a serious and meaty poster in the thread with a three word troll.
The empty Right on Full Display.
`

No. I went right for the obvious, to wit: that you were able to somehow figure out that I linked to a thread headline. Your intelligence is off the charts!

 

[ReinyDays]

Keep in mind that the IPCC report is also "a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS." ... Abu doesn't know this because he has no formal education in science ... doesn't know what d^2r/dt^2 means ...

 

[task0778]

Keep in mind that the IPCC report is also "a flawed and debunked Non-peer reviewed paper/POS." ... Abu doesn't know this because he has no formal education in science ... doesn't know what d^2r/dt^2 means ...

Or he doesn't believe it. He and others may or may not know much about science and climate change, but there are many smart, educated people who cannot accept that their own viewpoint could be wrong. They ignore the fact that for over 30 years we've been hectored with dire/drastic projections concerning global warming and climate change that haven't been close to being true, and fully expect all of us to spend enormous amounts of money that we don't have on projects that might not even make a difference in solving the problems.