More than 99.9% of peer reviewed studies show that humans are the primary cause of global warming

[ding]

Really?

Might I ask where you've been looking?

Climate Change in the Context of Paleoclimate

Studying the world before thermometers provides a better understanding of future climate concerns.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Created by Monica Bruckner, Montana State University. What is Paleoclimatology? Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, ...

serc.carleton.edu

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach." The...

phys.org

Paleoclimatology: Earth Systems Change Through Time – Historical Geology

opengeology.org

Understanding the Climate of Ancient Earth

The Earth has been around for a long time. Earth’s climate history is called its paleoclimate, where “paleo” means old or ancient. In this article, we explain how studying paleoclimate helps us understand how and why the Earth (and the life on it) evolved over time. Scientists can study the...

kids.frontiersin.org

Paleoclimate - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

Paleoclimatology: Understanding the Past to Predict the Future

Scientists use complicated climate models to predict how Earth's climate might change in the future. One of the best ways to test the reliability of such models is to see how well they recreate climates of the past.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Paleoclimate Research | U.S. Geological Survey

Lessons from the Past, Roadmap for the Future The present-day climate of the Earth is influenced by a combination of natural climate variability, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and changes in land cover (such as conversion from...

www.usgs.gov

Paleoclimate Changes and Significance of Present Global Warming

Earth’s climate has been changing since the conceivable beginning of the geological history of Earth. This is reflected by paleoclimate occurrences of ice ages, followed by consequent warmer interglacial episodes. The most recent ice age has been tentatively...

link.springer.com

Paleoclimatology - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Understanding how climate naturally varied over thousands and millions of years teaches us how Earth’s climate system works and sheds light on current, human-induced changes.

www.whoi.edu

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to acknowledge everything I have told you, right?

 

[Crick]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to acknowledge everything I have told you, right?

What I have found is that essentially EVERYTHING you have told me has been false.

 

[jc456]

What I have found is that essentially EVERYTHING you have told me has been false.

Hmm, I found the same about everything you post! Especially that the IPCC isn’t scientific

 

[Crick]

Hmm, I found the same about everything you post! Especially that the IPCC isn’t scientific

Good fucking god you are STUPID.

 

[BackAgain]

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

AND

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Abstract​

While controls over the Earth's climate system have undergone rigorous hypothesis-testing since the 1800s, questions over the scientific consensus of the role of human activities in modern climate change continue to arise in public settings. We update previous efforts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change by searching the recent literature for papers sceptical of anthropogenic-caused global warming. From a dataset of 88125 climate-related papers published since 2012, when this question was last addressed comprehensively, we examine a randomized subset of 3000 such publications. We also use a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical peer-reviewed papers in the whole dataset. We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

---

The consensus means something. For all practical purposes, there is no longer ANY scientific debate on the primary cause of global warming.

OF the (say) 418 parts per million of CO2 in our planetary atmosphere, [ Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ]
the question was asked “how many parts of that 400 parts per million were put there due to human activity?”

I understand that it’s 3%. [ looking for a link ]. If that’s true, then that would make it 12 parts per million.

Yet human co2 in our atmosphere is now “the” cause of global warming?

 

[jc456]

Good fucking god you are STUPID.

You really think the IPCC is scientific! And you call me stupid! Too funny

 

[justoffal]

I’d the (say) 418 parts per million of CO2 in our planetary atmosphere, [ Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ]
the question was asked “how many parts of that 400 parts per million were put there due to human activity?”

I understand that it’s 3%. [ looking for a link ]. If that’s true, then that would make it 12 parts per million.

Yet human co2 in our atmosphere is now “the” cause of global warming?

Yeah statistically it seems unlikely. I guess what they're trying to push is that prior to the industrial revolution The Carbon cycle had found a SwissWatch balance that was very easy to disturb apparently. Given the many sources of natural CO2 I find that extremely difficult to swallow but.... hey who knows???... maybe it really was just that delicate. Kind of makes you wonder how we made it this far without having it disturbed by something else if it really is that delicate.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah statistically it seems unlikely. I guess what they're trying to push is that prior to the industrial revolution The Carbon cycle had found a SwissWatch balance that was very easy to disturb apparently. Given the many sources of natural CO2 I find that extremely difficult to swallow but.... hey who knows???... maybe it really was just that delicate. Kind of makes you wonder how we made it this far without having it disturbed by something else if it really is that delicate.

I agree that the AGW Faithers do indeed claim that, however small our production of additional CO2 might be, it is that little additional contribution which is the dangerous amount that tips a critical balance.

 

[jc456]

I agree that the AGW Faithers do indeed claim that, however small our production of additional CO2 might be, it is that little additional contribution which is the dangerous amount that tips a critical balance.

So the warmers think .01% of the atmosphere is dangerous ! .01%!! Hahaha hahaha. And not one of those evil fks can show how they know! Know that, one has to be faithful to the lies!! Hahaha

 

[justoffal]

So the warmers think .01% of the atmosphere is dangerous ! .01%!! Hahaha hahaha. And not one of those evil fks can show how they know! Know that, one has to be faithful to the lies!! Hahaha

I guess it's remotely possible that our tiny contributions have tipped the scale over yet I have the nagging feeling that something much bigger is at work here. There's no question that the CO2 PPM and the temperature curves seem to match each other. But that would work either way. As temperature rises there is more CO2 present in the atmosphere. It comes down to a chicken and egg question. Either way it would seem as though we would have to prepare for somewhat warmer future then we are used to.

 

[jc456]

I guess it's remotely possible that our tiny contributions have tipped the scale over yet I have the nagging feeling that something much bigger is at work here. There's no question that the CO2 PPM and the temperature curves seem to match each other. But that would work either way. As temperature rises there is more CO2 present in the atmosphere. It comes down to a chicken and egg question. Either way it would seem as though we would have to prepare for somewhat warmer future then we are used to.

CO2 must lag temperature. As oceans warm they release CO2. That’s science. All ice core data shows CO2 lags temperatures! The warmers are pricks

 

[justoffal]

CO2 must lag temperature. As oceans warm they release CO2. That’s science. All I’ve vote data shows CO2 lags temperatures! The warmers are pricks

I find it remarkable that they are so willing to dismiss the fact that the Sun is progressing into its helium stage. Every time I research that subject I am baraged by hundreds of statements frantically made by AGW defenders insisting that there has been no measurable increase in solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth; And yet that simply cannot be true. As the sun burns through roughly 600 million tons of hydrogen per second converting it to helium the process is creeping forward and with that process the energy output of the Sun is increasing even if it's not measurable by current methods.. The sun is not going to wait A million years and then suddenly decide to turn the energy output up. It's going to go up gradually in ways that we may not even perceive.

Furthermore they claim to be able to separate the combusted CO2 from the naturally occur in CO2 by some form of isotope test.

This would seemingly answer the question for them as to whether or not the carbon increase we're experiencing is natural or not.

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

I've pointed out on many occasions that super combustion of deep strata hydrocarbons takes place every time we have a volcanic eruption and some of those eruptions produce as much atmospheric gassing as all of civilization does for a decade.

But I continue to run into zealous walls of resistance insisting that mankind and mankind alone is responsible for the CO2 increase.

 

[jc456]

I find it remarkable that they are so willing to dismiss the fact that the Sun is progressing into its helium stage. Every time I research that subject I am baraged by hundreds of statements frantically made by AGW defenders insisting that there has been no measurable increase in solar radiation being absorbed by the Earth; And yet that simply cannot be true. As the sun burns through roughly 100 million tons of hydrogen per second converting it to helium the process is creeping forward and with that process the energy output of the Sun is increasing even if it's not measurable by current methods.. The sun is not going to wait A million years and then suddenly decide to turn the energy output up. It's going to go up gradually in ways that we may not even perceive.

Furthermore they claim to be able to separate the combusted CO2 from the naturally occur in CO2 by some form of isotope test.

This would seemingly answer the question for them as to whether or not the carbon increase we're experiencing is natural or not.

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

I've pointed out on many occasions that super combustion of deep strata hydrocarbons takes place every time we have a volcanic eruption and some of those eruptions produce as much atmospheric gassing as all of civilization does for a decade.

But I continue to run into zealous walls of resistance insisting that mankind and mankind alone is responsible for the CO2 increase.

Exactly

 

[Crick]

I find it remarkable that they are so willing to dismiss the fact that the Sun is progressing into its helium stage.

The sun will not enter its helium stage for another 5 billion years. The sun is in its main stage, turning hydrogen into helium.

 

[ding]

What I have found is that essentially EVERYTHING you have told me has been false.

So the oxygen isotope curve is a lie?

 

[Crick]

So the oxygen isotope curve is a lie?

Did I not speak clearly enough that you could respond without another lie?

 

[justoffal]

The sun will not enter its helium stage for another 5 billion years. The sun is in its main stage, turning hydrogen into helium.

Exactly but it doesn't just turn on....it's gradual. 5 billion years is when the sun will become a red giant.... Life on Earth will be gone 4 billion years before that... It will literally be boiled off the surface.

 

[Crick]

Exactly but it doesn't just turn on....it's gradual. 5 billion years is when the sun will become a red giant.... Life on Earth will be gone 4 billion years before that... It will literally be boiled off the surface.

The sun has been a main stage star for 4.6 billion years, so it is about halfway through that stage. And the transition to helium fusion will be relatively sudden. Look at this graphic

This is from an interesting article describing the post - Main Stage life of our sun. If you haven't already read it... The End Of The Sun.

 

[justoffal]

The sun has been a main stage star for 4.6 billion years, so it is about halfway through that stage. And the transition to helium fusion will be relatively sudden. Look at this graphic

This is from an interesting article describing the post - Main Stage life of our sun. If you haven't already read it... The End Of The Sun.

Yes I am familiar with it...focus on the luminosity vector....it's tilted up. integral calculus...
Keep magnifying the segment until it appears to lose its slope....
I can't believe that it is not a factor. Yes I know it is said that loss of mass cancels increase in luminosity....
Does it?

 

[Crick]

Yes I am familiar with it...focus on the luminosity vector....it's tilted up. integral calculus...

Do you perhaps mean differential calculus? The rate of luminosity change?

Keep magnifying the segment until it appears to lose its slope....

Magnification will make the curvature disappear, not the slope.

I can't believe that it is not a factor. Yes I know it is said that loss of mass cancels increase in luminosity....
Does it?

I missed the beginning of this conversation. I don't know what you see happening as a result of the sun's stellar evolution.