seven stats on climate change

[georgephillip]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

"So what's the evidence?
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

1. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
2. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
3. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
   
   1. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions [URL='http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-3.html'](research beginning in 1930s)
   1. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
   2. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
   3. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)
   [/URL]

 

[SSDD]

It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?

Great...let’s see the actual evidence that supports that claim..

we know that most life on earth had evolved pretty close to its present form by the time the ice age started...let’s see some evidence suggesting that we are some how excluded.

Great...let’s see the actual evidence that supports that claim..

we know that most life on earth had evolved pretty close to its present form by the time the ice age started...let’s see some evidence suggesting that we are some how excluded.

Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the following?

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on EPICA (ice core) data.

Yes, there is ample reason to doubt that your graph is of any practical use. Since the 19th century more than 90,000 chemical analysis tests were done to test the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Those chemical tests were far more accurate than any testing we do today as they would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. They found daily CO2 concentrations even higher than the present. So yes, there is valid reason to not assume that your graph is an accurate representation.

The graph you provide has a maximum resolution of hundreds, perhaps thousands of years and as a result, is of minimal use for determining what the CO2 conentration for any given year might have been...in addition, a great deal of data that didn't agree with a CO2 concentration that had already been agreed on was thrown out.

The chemical tests above show concentrations on particular days...the resolution is in hours, not hundreds of years...and they are far more accurate than any measurements we use today.

 

[SSDD]

What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.

GOOD FOR YOU!

So what? Your choice, not mine!

I'm old and decrepit but I still enjoy starting up my '66 Goat that I bought in 1969. I totally refurbished it about 15 years ago. A company that rebuilds engines for NASCAR rebuilt the engine and boosted it up to 521 hp, beefed-up 4-speed transmission, and rear end. I do love the way it rumbles and the looks I especially kids, when I roll-up. Nope, it does not get 18 mpg.

Do I NEED it? Heck no! What 75-year-old codger NEEDS a 500+ hp hotrod? I probably don't NEED my Cadillac or Harley either, but I WANT them and I still enjoy them.

Enjoy squeezing into your Prius and I'll continue to try avoiding sucking them into one of the three carburetors while it idles at the stoplight!

Your ignorance about the Prius is amusing.

Fucking over your Grandkids.

Got any empirical evidence to support your climate claims? Of course you don't...

 

[SSDD]

What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.

GOOD FOR YOU!

So what? Your choice, not mine!

I'm old and decrepit but I still enjoy starting up my '66 Goat that I bought in 1969. I totally refurbished it about 15 years ago. A company that rebuilds engines for NASCAR rebuilt the engine and boosted it up to 521 hp, beefed-up 4-speed transmission, and rear end. I do love the way it rumbles and the looks I especially kids, when I roll-up. Nope, it does not get 18 mpg.

Do I NEED it? Heck no! What 75-year-old codger NEEDS a 500+ hp hotrod? I probably don't NEED my Cadillac or Harley either, but I WANT them and I still enjoy them.

Enjoy squeezing into your Prius and I'll continue to try avoiding sucking them into one of the three carburetors while it idles at the stoplight!

Your ignorance about the Prius is amusing.

Fucking over your Grandkids.

Stop alright, nobody is buying your pathetic sob story...you're exactly the definition of a white liberal, no one wants anything to do with you or your latest "sky is falling" cries of doom so you lash out and demand they do as you say.

Don't let your ignorance condemn your grandchildren to a more difficult future. Pull your head out of your ass & become better informed.

Any empirical evidence to support your claims? Of course not...it is all smoke...

 

[SSDD]

Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not.

Where did you get that idea?

Ice Ages - Dive & Discover

"There are several natural forces that together lead to an ice age on Earth.

"The answer lies in how the orbit of the Earth around the sun changes.

"The average temperature on Earth depends on the Earth’s distance from the sun.

"If the Earth were closer to the sun, it would be hotter; if the Earth were further away from the sun, it would be colder

"A Yugoslav astronomer, Milutin Milankovitch, learned how changes in Earth’s orbit can changes in climate to cause ice ages.

"He studied three types of changes in Earth’s orbit: its shape, the tilt of the its axis, and the wobble of the its axis.

And we are just beginning to understand how changes in the sun's output in particular frequencies affects our climate...we know so little about what actually drives the climate that it is bald faced malfeasance to claim that the science of climate is settled..

 

[westwall]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

"So what's the evidence?
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

1. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
2. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
3. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
   1. 
      
   2. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
   3. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
   4. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
   5. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

Correlation does not equal causation. A scientific axiom that anti science deniers hate.

 

[georgephillip]

Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing? So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what? It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes

Why do you make ridiculous claims like that without providing any evidence?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels.

"Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks.

"This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3"

"The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling..."

 

[SSDD]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

"So what's the evidence?
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)

Who said we don't produce CO2?

1. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

I have provided peer reviewed published papers stating that the amount of CO2 we produce is hardly detectable from the noise of the earth's own CO2 making machinery. I can't help but note that you have produced no peer reviewed published science challenging any of those papers.

1. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)

Untrue. From the 1800's to 2004 more than 90,000 chemical analyses of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere have been done...they show CO2 levels higher than the present. And chemical analyses are far more accurate than the tests presently being done.

1. analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)

It has been demonstrated that isotopes are of little use in determining where CO2 came from as CO2 emitted from volcanic activity is indistinguishable from CO2 emitted from CO2...and it has recently been learned that there may be upwards of a million undersea volcanic vents spewing CO2 that have not been considered by climate science...

Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)[quote]

Yep...we know that because of the absorption spectra. We also know that because of the emission spectra that any energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is immediately emitted...nothing is trapped..if it were, it would show up on the emission spectra.

Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)

Sorry guy..there is no observable correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over the past 150 years...except for the fact that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature.

Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)

Name all the natural factors that can effect climate...and how each factor interacts with the other factors. If you can do that, there is a nobel in it for you. We have barely scratched the surface with regard to what factors drive the climate...we don't even know what the natural factors are, much less are we able to eliminate them.

Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)

the computer models are abject failures...how many peer reviewed, published papers would you like to see on the topic?

Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

Consensus based one what? There is no empirical evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...there is no empirical evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and there hasn't been a single paper published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...lacking any sort of empirical evidence, exactly what is this alleged consensus based upon?

 

[georgephillip]

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?

 

[SSDD]

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels.

Actually what those ice cores show is that CO2 levels respond to changes in the earth's climate...Science has known for quite some time that there is a lag between 100 and 1000 years between changes in temperature and changes in CO2...which always follow...primarily due to the fact that changes in temperature can have profound effects on the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Propagandists rarely mention that fact when pointing out correlation between temperature and CO2...if they did, they would be scientists and not propagandists.

 

[Silver Cat]

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

"So what's the evidence?
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

1. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
2. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
3. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
   1. 
      
   2. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
   3. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
   4. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
   5. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

It is fine, but what about most important greenhouse gas - water vapour and human role in its emission?
You know, if a researcher intentionally ignore "undesirable" facts, he is not a "researcher", but a "charlatan".

 

[SSDD]

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?

Your inability to provide any empirical evidence challenging my statements is evidence...If there were such evidence, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...and yet you can't produce any of it...not a single shred. You can't because there is none..

 

[Silver Cat]

Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing? So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what? It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes

Why do you make ridiculous claims like that without providing any evidence?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels.

"Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks.

"This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3"

"The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling..."

Are you sure?
Eemian - Wikipedia
--------------------
Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,[17][18] with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft),[19] thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft),[20] and an uncertain contribution from Antarctica.[21] Recent research on marine sediment cores offshore of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet suggest that the sheet melted during the Eemian, and that ocean waters rose as fast as 2.5 meters per century.
-----------------------

Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in)

 

[georgephillip]

here is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.

You believe there's no evidence of increased levels of greenhouse gases causing the earth's temperature to increase?

"Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures.

"The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence).

"The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined.

"The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.

"The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[ReinyDays]

What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to condone you for this ... and in some of the other posts you've made actually suggest solutions ... fucking cool you've access to geothermal, the hydro I have here is amazing ... I work construction, my rig gets 26 mpg, and I can haul full sheets of plywood easily ... I fill up once a month whether I need to or not ... I vacation locally to avoid airline travel ... but I eat meat every meal, and I'm ashamed of that ...

There's lots of better reasons to curtail fossil fuel use ... starting with it's limited supply ... we'll run out of cheap oil, and then we'll have to burn expensive oil ... the time to start switching over is now, or maybe it was 40 years ago, back when we had to wait three hours in a gas line to buy 5 gallons of gas ...

Saving money is an excellent measure of saving the universe ... none better for the average person ... starting with your internet bill ...

 

[Silver Cat]

here is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.

You believe there's no evidence of increased levels of greenhouse gases causing the earth's temperature to increase?

"Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures.

"The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence).

"The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined.

"The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.

"The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

How many greenhouse gases were counted in this "model"? How do they count forestation caused by hunters and deforestation, caused by farmers?
How do they count changes in the ocean absorbation ability, caused, for example, by the wide usage of fertilizers?

 

[ReinyDays]

here is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.

You believe there's no evidence of increased levels of greenhouse gases causing the earth's temperature to increase?

"Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures.

"The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence).

"The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined.

"The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.

"The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

How many greenhouse gases were counted in this "model"? How do they count forestation caused by hunters and deforestation, caused by farmers?
How do they count changes in the ocean absorbation ability, caused, for example, by the wide usage of fertilizers?

georgephillips' citation is dated Feb 6th, 2020 ... it's only Jan 16th in my time zone ... very strange ... maybe we're using a different calendar here on the West Coast ...

 

[georgephillip]

But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.

Would you say Australia's fossil fueled capitalists qualify as the arsonist's accomplices?

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"We see firefighters making do with pathetic paper masks, while the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

"We see a military which can mobilise massive force to defend oil and empire in the Middle East, and to capture refugees from those wars and deliver them to an island prison–but is apparently incapable of moving a civilian population to safety with anything approaching urgency.

"We see a political and economic elite that can’t wrench itself away from the industries that have created this disaster.

"Six of the 30 biggest corporations on Australia’s stock exchange are mining or fossil fuel companies–probably a world record. Coal is 15 percent of export revenues.

"Australia’s ruling class is one of the most carbon-addicted sections of a global elite that has always valued power and profit above our planet and our lives."

 

[RealDave]

Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?

Your inability to provide any empirical evidence challenging my statements is evidence...If there were such evidence, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...and yet you can't produce any of it...not a single shred. You can't because there is none..

You show a graph & attach your analysis.

Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.your

 

[RealDave]

Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not.

Where did you get that idea?

Ice Ages - Dive & Discover

"There are several natural forces that together lead to an ice age on Earth.

"The answer lies in how the orbit of the Earth around the sun changes.

"The average temperature on Earth depends on the Earth’s distance from the sun.

"If the Earth were closer to the sun, it would be hotter; if the Earth were further away from the sun, it would be colder

"A Yugoslav astronomer, Milutin Milankovitch, learned how changes in Earth’s orbit can changes in climate to cause ice ages.

"He studied three types of changes in Earth’s orbit: its shape, the tilt of the its axis, and the wobble of the its axis.

And we are just beginning to understand how changes in the sun's output in particular frequencies affects our climate...we know so little about what actually drives the climate that it is bald faced malfeasance to claim that the science of climate is settled..

What determines our climate is complicated with any possible factors.

That does not change that we are experiencing climate change that is primarily due to man made emissions/.

You think scientists are stupid & don;t know about other factors? NASA did not consider orbits or solar cycles or volcanoes or deforestation or what ever orther stupid excuse you use to be stupid.