How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Crick]

What data do you believe has been falsified?

 

[SSDD]

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin?

Comparing apples to ballet slippers again...it isn't dioxin...it is CO2 a trace gas in the atmosphere not capable of altering the global climate in the least...

Clearly you believe it can...where does that belief come from?

Can you produce a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses?

I contend that there is no such published paper and that your claims are unsupportable rubbish...feel free to prove me wrong...if such a paper exists, who wrote it, where was it published and can you provide a link to it?

Step on up skidmark...can you support your claims or not?

 

[SSDD]

By any measure, AGW is a widely accepted theory. The original disagreement here was the contention that it lacks the status of theory and is only a conjectured hypothesis. This contention is demonstrably false.

The 12 year comment of Representative Ocasio-Cortez is dramatic hyperbole. She's not a scientist so the litany of attacks on her comments by deniers is just another fallacious straw dog argument to which there is zero need to respond.

If you want a real discussion about real issues, I suggest you stick to the conclusions of the IPCC.

It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...

 

[SSDD]

What data do you believe has been falsified?

that whole chart for starters...graphs from years past can be provided showing different versions of the data manipulation through the decades.....

 

[Crick]

That question was for poster Flash, not you. Since you never provide supporting evidence for your claims, discussing anything pertinent with you is a complete waste of time. You are, after all, nothing but a

TROLL

 

[Crick]

It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...

Those who have the qualifications to make such a determination (and that most assuredly does not include you) have said it is a theory. Very close to every single one of them has accepted it as valid. Your complaints are scientific and logical bullshit. You simply make shit up to get a 'rise' from the rest of us because every day and in every way, you are a

TROLL

 

[SSDD]

That question was for poster Flash, not you. Since you never provide supporting evidence for your claims, discussing anything pertinent with you is a complete waste of time. You are, after all, nothing but a

TROLL

Projecting again skidmark? You are the one who claims that there is observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...evidence which you don't seem to be able to find in spite of your claims...and you claim that papers have been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities have been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...and again, you don't seem to be able to produce them...

You are the one making claims you can't support...and the fact remains that the whole chart is fraudulent and past charts can be shown marking the variations from year to year as the data is altered...

 

[SSDD]

It is not a theory...the word theory means something...can you show any of the repeatable experiments, that would have to exist in order to move AGW from the status of a piss poor hypothesis up to the status of theory...

Those who have the qualifications to make such a determination (and that most assuredly does not include you) have said it is a theory. Very close to every single one of them has accepted it as valid. Your complaints are scientific and logical bullshit. You simply make shit up to get a 'rise' from the rest of us because every day and in every way, you are a

TROLL

Theory -a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

So lets see the experimental data by which these propositions were tested...and the predictive failure of the AGW hypothesis is becoming legendary...so no..it is not a theory and is a piss poor hypothesis...and the fact that some in science claim it is theory, only speaks to their incompetence at calling such a piss poor hypothesis a tested theory...

You are easily fooled...

 

[Crick]

You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct". Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct".

The Scientific Method is not as hard and fast as you would believe. How, for instance, would one conduct experiments in astronomy or cosmology? In cases in which laboratory experiments are not practical or even possible, observations can be used to test falsification.

From Scientific method - Wikipedia
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[1][2] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[3]

...
..
.
Scientific methodology often directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions wherever possible. This is frequently possible in certain areas, such as in the biological sciences, and more difficult in other areas, such as in astronomy.

References

1. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . Hibbert Journal. 7: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
2. ^ See, for example, Galileo 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies, in Two New Sciences.
3. ^ Popper 1959, p. 273

 

[SSDD]

You zipped right by "commonly regarded as correct". Obviously, AGW is well beyond "commonly regarded as correct".

Based on what? You can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...That speaks directly to the corruption of the science by politics....the scam is failing....literally hundreds of papers were published last year alone questioning the scam.....more will be published this year...and the next year....your scam is dying and your bullshit reeks of desperation...

 

[Crick]

Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists. Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing.

And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published. And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.

TROLL

 

[SSDD]

Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists. Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing.

And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published. And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.

TROLL

But they do care about the evidence you can't produce.....and neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

And we all know that in science...real science, you rule out natural causes before you jump to conclusions that can't be supported with the actual evidence...in pseudoscience, you can claim whatever you like, and fail as often as you fail so long as the funding keeps coming in...

 

[jc456]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

prove it. let's see the experiment that separates the CO2.

How long have humans been on this planet? when was your reading of 280PPM? you say pre industrial, then that implies that throughout history, not one fking human breathed. Cause you're saying the 280 is all natural. so what happened to all the cow farts and people farts and coal burning and all of that prior to that 280? your entire line is so much bullshit, I prove your fallacy with this post. so fk off now.

 

[Crick]

Nobody give a SHIT what evidence you're willing to admit exists. Almost every single one of the real scientists doing the real research on this topic say the evidence is more than convincing.

And let's see the titles of some of these "hundreds of papers" that were published. And, putting your own work on your own website is NOT getting published.

TROLL

But they do care about the evidence you can't produce.....

But I have produced evidence: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and then there are the thousands of published studies on which the IPCC's assessment reports are based.

You, on the other hand, have produced none.

and neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

That would be a lie.

And we all know that in science...real science, you rule out natural causes before you jump to conclusions that can't be supported with the actual evidence...in pseudoscience, you can claim whatever you like, and fail as often as you fail so long as the funding keeps coming in...

Natural causes for global warming HAVE been ruled out.

And, again, let's see some of these "hundreds of papers" that refute AGW you claim have been published . And putting your own crap up on a website is still not the same as getting published.

 

[Cosmos]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

Actually, there is. You just didn't see it.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.


Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.


Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.


So not only can they measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, they can fingerprint it's composition and determine its source.

 

[SSDD]

But I have produced evidence: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and then there are the thousands of published studies on which the IPCC's assessment reports are based.

You have produced evidence that the climate changes...but you haven't even come close to producing anything like observed, measured evidence that mankind is responsible....nor have you provided anything like evidence that the change we have seen is unusual or unprecedented.

You have produced evidence that sea level is rising..but haven't produced anything like observed, measured evidence that mankind is in any way responsible...nor have you provided anything like real evidence that the sea level change we have seen is in any way outside of natural variability...

And so it goes with everything you have produced...it is evidence, but not evidence of what you claim...you show evidence of change and then hang a big assed assumption on it that mankind is responsible with no evidence to support the assumption. That is because you are a dupe and don't seem to be able to grasp the difference between evidence of a thing...and evidence of what caused the thing..

That would be a lie.

Says the dupe who can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

Natural causes for global warming HAVE been ruled out.

Really? What are all the natural factors that cause climate change? How do they effect climate change? How do they effect each other and how do those effects alter the global climate? The answer to those questions is a resounding we don't know...We are just barely scratching the surface regarding what drives the climate, what causes it to change and what doesn't...there are plenty of published papers examining the natural causes of climate change and challenging the claim that we drive the climate here..

And, again, let's see some of these "hundreds of papers" that refute AGW you claim have been published . And putting your own crap up on a website is still not the same as getting published.

Sure skidmark...unlike you, I don' make claims that I can't back up....When I say that there are papers that support my position, I am prepared to give you title, author, publication, and a link....If you could only reciprocate....of course you can't, because none of the data you claim exists actual exists...so you give vague links that simply go to steaming piles rather than actually list the papers you claim support your claims....Lets begin with papers published in 2018...then if you like, we can move on back..and since there are more than 500 published in 2018 alone, I won't be covering them all..

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period. … [T]he lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/39/2018/tc-12-39-2018-supplement.pdf

https://www.clim-past.net/14/101/2018/cp-14-101-2018.pdf

Persistent multidecadal variability with a period of 50– 90 years is consistent between the subarctic North Atlantic mean record and the AMO over the last 2 centuries (AD 1856–2000). … The climate of the Arctic–subarctic is influenced by the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, which experience internal variability on different timescales with specific regional climate impacts. In the North Atlantic sector, instrumental sea surface temperature (SST) variations since AD 1860 highlight low-frequency oscillations known as the AMO (Kerr, 2000). … The evidence of industrial era warming starting earlier at the beginning of the 19th century was proposed by Abram et al. (2016) for the entire Arctic area. However, the intense volcanic activity of the 19th century (1809, 1815 and around 1840; Sigl et al., 2015) may also explain the apparent early warming trend, suggesting that it may have been recovery from an exceptionally cool phase. On the scale of the Holocene, internal fluctuations occurring on a millennial scale have been identified in the subarctic North Atlantic area and were tentatively related to ocean dynamics (Debret et al., 2007; Mjell et al., 2015). … The LIA is, however, characterized by an important spatial and temporal variability, particularly visible on a more regional scale (e.g., PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). It has been attributed to a combination of natural external forcings (solar activity and large volcanic eruptions) and internal sea ice and ocean feedback, which fostered long-standing effects of short-lived volcanic events (Miller et al., 2012).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0092.1

Observed Southern Ocean changes over recent decades include a surface freshening (Durack and Wijffels 2010; Durack et al. 2012; de Lavergne et al. 2014), surface cooling (Fan et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2014; Armour et al. 2016; Purich et al. 2016a) and circumpolar increase in Antarctic sea ice (Cavalieri and Parkinson 2008; Comiso and Nishio 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012). … [A]s high-latitude surface freshening is associated with surface cooling and a sea ice increase, this may be another factor contributing to the CMIP5 models excessive Southern Ocean surface warming contrasting the observed surface cooling (Marshall et al. 2014; Purich et al. 2016a), and sea ice decline contrasting the observed increases (Mahlstein et al. 2013; Polvani and Smith 2013; Swart and Fyfe 2013; Turner et al. 2013; Zunz et al. 2013; Gagne et al. 2015) over recent decades. … Our results suggest that recent multi-decadal trends in large-scale surface salinity over the Southern Ocean have played a role in the observed surface cooling seen in this region. … The majority of CMIP5 models do not simulate a surface cooling and increase in sea ice (Fig. 8b), as seen in observations.

How many more would you like...there are hundreds and hundreds...and what category of skepticism of the "consensus" would you care to see?

The papers above lean towards there being no net warming since the mid to late 20th century...but we can look at dozens of non hockey stick reconstructions...whe can look at a couple of dozen which find a lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea level rise...we can look at a couple of dozen that find nothing unusual happening with either glaciers or polar ice, we can look at a couple of recent papers examining Antarctic ice melting due to high geothermal heat flux, and there are a few that describe abrupt degrees per decade periods of natural warming.

Or we can look at better than 100 which look at the solar influence on climate vs the anthropogenic claims, a couple of dozen which examine ENSO, NAO, AMO, and PDO climate influences vs anthropogenic claims, about a dozen examining modern climate being in phase with natural variability...Volcanic influence, Cloud/aerosol influence, and about a dozen which question the CO2/radiative greenhouse effect as being a climate driver at all.

Or we can look at a couple of dozen on climate model unreliability, biases, and errors, a few on urban heat island effects artificially raising temperatures, a dozen or so on failing renewable energy climate policies, a dozen or so on the damage wind power is doing to the environment and biosphere, a couple of dozen on elevated CO2 increasing crop yields, about a dozen on polar bear populations not cooperating with alarmists claims, about a dozen on warming, and acidification not harming the ocean, a couple on coral bleaching being a natural, recurring phenomenon, about a dozen on no increasing trends in intense hurricanes, about a dozen on there being no increasing trend in drought or flood frequency and severity, a few on natural CO2 emissions being a net source, not a net sink, a couple on the decrease in global fire frequency as CO2 increases, a few on CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by more than a thousand years, a couple on global losses and deaths from weather disasters decreasing, about a half a dozen on there being no AGW changes to hydrological cycles being detectable, and some miscellaneous skeptical papers...

So where to next skidmark? Unlike you, I can back up my claims and won't send you off on some wild goose chase hoping that you might find something that sort of sounds like what I claimed...I am prepared to give you author, title, publication, and a link to the paper in question...

 

[Confounding]

I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists all over the fucking world that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anybody, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.

 

[SSDD]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability

Actually, there is. You just didn't see it.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Really? Lets take a look. It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of warmers.

We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.

Which part of that statement do you believe represents observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? It is certainly a claim, but where is the actual observed, measured evidence to back it up? I don't see anything there...maybe you could cut and paste what it is that passes for observed, measured evidence in your mind..

Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.

Actually, that isn't altogether true, but even if it were, exactly what is that proof of beyond the fact that we produce CO2? Which part of that do you think is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? The assumption that our CO2 is causing warming is hardly evidence of anything...

Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.

Again...debatable...I can provide you with actual published papers which call into question whether the amount of CO2 we produce has any effect on the total atmospheric CO2 as opposed to the opinion piece which you believe contains anything like actual evidence..it is chock full of claims, but I don't see anything at all there that amounts to evidence of anything other than that perhaps we produce CO2 as if that were in question.

So not only can they measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, they can fingerprint it's composition and determine its source.

And? So you have evidence that we produce CO2? Who ever questioned that? Got any actual observed, measured evidence that our CO2 causes warming? I see plenty of assumption in your link that it does, but nothing like actual evidence...Assuming that our CO2 or any CO2 causes warming doesn't make it so...Lets see the observed, measured evidence that it does...

 

[SSDD]

I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists all over the fucking world that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anything, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.

So lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. You act as if you have seen such evidence and it was enough to convince you...I have been looking and asking for 30 years for a single piece of such evidence and have neither found it, nor been shown it...

And you know what? You aren't going to show it to me either because no such evidence exists...not one single shred of evidence that suggests that what bit of climate change we have seen is anything other than natural variability...

You can produce claims, and assumptions galore...but no actual evidence to support the claim. So exactly what good are all your scientists, and their consensus, if between them, they can't produce any real evidence to support their claims?

 

[Confounding]

I am amazed that these assholes have the arrogance to question the work and integrity of scientists all over the fucking world that have dedicated their lives to this stuff. These are the people that know more about it than anything, and your response to their findings is "Bullshit, you're lying." You morons looked at a couple of graphs on some bullshit conspiracy blog websites and you think you're qualified to dispute the findings of the most qualified people on Earth. This is completely motivated by partisan bullshit for you people. You think there's some leftist conspiracy involving all of the climate scientists but there really isn't. You're just fucking stupid, seriously.

So lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. You act as if you have seen such evidence and it was enough to convince you...I have been looking and asking for 30 years for a single piece of such evidence and have neither found it, nor been shown it...

And you know what? You aren't going to show it to me either because no such evidence exists...not one single shred of evidence that suggests that what bit of climate change we have seen is anything other than natural variability...

You can produce claims, and assumptions galore...but no actual evidence to support the claim. So exactly what good are all your scientists, and their consensus, if between them, they can't produce any real evidence to support their claims?

I am not enough of a dumb fuck to sit here and even pretend I am qualified to explain to you the science behind AGW. You have no idea how much you don't understand. A climate scientist would laugh at you.