How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[ding]

Only a moron would argue that science is ever settled. AGW isn't a scientific movement. It's a political movement. A religious movement.

 

[abu afak]

Which means what? CO2 LAGS temperature. We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.

First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
I did and repeated for you.
UNTOUCHED

Second, in a pure nature scenario it Both lags and then heavily contributes TO warming.
In AGW, we alone can and did start the Industrial Revolution cycle with CO2.
Stick around I can teach you more even as your RW instincts **** your mind.

`

 

[ding]

First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
I did and repeated for you.
UNTOUCHED

Second, in a pure nature scenario it Both lags and then heavily contributes TO warming.
In AGW, we alone can and did start the Industrial Revolution cycle with CO2.
Stick around I can teach you more even as your RW instincts **** your mind.

`

Isn't the greenhouse gas effect supposed to be practically instantaneous? That if you could change the concentration magically from say 120 ppm to 580 ppm, that that effect would be practically instantaneous? That you could literally feel the difference?

 

[westwall]

First you were Lying that I didn't show empirical data.
I did and repeated for you.
UNTOUCHED

Second, in a pure nature scenario it Both lags and then heavily contributes TO warming.
In AGW, we alone can and did start the Industrial Revolution cycle with CO2.
Stick around I can teach you more even as your RW instincts **** your mind.

`

You showed a CO2 graph. CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years. This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE. In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps. If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.

Yet there are. Many, many, many of them. Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool. Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

Period.

That is called science.

You don't understand science, you only understand science fiction.

 

[abu afak]

You showed a CO2 graph. CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years. This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE. In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps. If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.

Yet there are. Many, many, many of them. Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool. Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

Period.

That is called science.

You don't understand science, you only understand science fiction.

You're LYING again.
I showed well more than a graph, I explained one of the main reasons we know it's AGW.
You are a shameless Liar.
and you Lied because you were not smart enough to answer what WAS posted.

MY post to YOU from the LAST PAGE And the one before.
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.

Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case​

:​

""A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.​

ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.​

​

​

​

ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!​

NO!​

It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.​

​

And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​

Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.​

There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.​

It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.​

​

THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.​

​

You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.​

​

RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.​

- - - -​

​

​

That's both Empirical and explained... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.​

You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.​

Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.​

​

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.​

YOU CAN'T DEBATE ME!​

It's a joke.​

`​

 

[westwall]

You're LYING again.
I showed well more than a graph, I explained one of the main reasons we know it's AGW.
You are a shameless Liar.
and you Lied because you were not smart enough to answer what WAS posted.

MY post to YOU from the LAST PAGE And the one before.
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.

Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case​

:​

""A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.​

ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.​

​

​

​

ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!​

NO!​

It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.​

​

And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​

Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.​

There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.​

It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.​

​

THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.​

​

You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.​

​

RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.​

​

​

​

That's both Empirical and explained... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.​

You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.​

Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.​

​

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.​

YOU CAN'T DEBATE ME!​

It's a joke.​

`​

You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything. You are spewing OPINION. OPINIONS aren't facts. Science, and the scientific method are very clear. You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE. Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%. That is KNOWN. The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.

 

[abu afak]

You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything. You are spewing OPINION. OPINIONS aren't facts. Science, and the scientific method are very clear. You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE. Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%. That is KNOWN. The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.

LYING again:
PART of my thrice repeated post.

​

"And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:​

Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have MEASURED the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.​

There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.​

It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.​

​

THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW."​

So now you just continue LYING and remaining in denial
That is not 'opinion' that is measurement/Data.
Read the OP links from ie, NASA, Columbia, Yale, etc

You are not conversant nor coherent.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Chemists have proven that GHGs raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmospheric Physicists have written many articles concerning how the longwave IR is absorbed by the GHGs and how that warms the atmosphere. And Geologists and Glaciologists have demonstrated how the temperature of the earth has varied with the effects of GHGs.

Don't forget, the US military is willing to spend more money and the insurance companies
are willing to raise your premiums.

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't the greenhouse gas effect supposed to be practically instantaneous? That if you could change the concentration magically from say 120 ppm to 580 ppm, that that effect would be practically instantaneous? That you could literally feel the difference?

Only according to people as stupid as you. We have a huge amount of thermal inertia in our oceans. However, to dummies like you, that is irrelevant.

 

[Old Rocks]

You showed a CO2 graph. CO2 PROVABLY lags behind temperatures by hundreds of years. This is not a guess, this is not a computer model, this is data that is PROVEN TO BE TRUE. In a pure nature scenario it does nothing for global temps. If it did then there would be NO period where temps were low but CO2 was high.

Yet there are. Many, many, many of them. Conversely there are also periods where CO2 levels were extremely high yet global temperatures were cool. Thus breaking ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

Period.

That is called science.

You don't understand science, you only understand science fiction.

And you are a liar, as usual.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't forget, the US military is willing to spend more money and the insurance companies
are willing to raise your premiums.

Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing. Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade. An insurance company that is bankrupt does no one any good.

 

[ding]

Only according to people as stupid as you. We have a huge amount of thermal inertia in our oceans. However, to dummies like you, that is irrelevant.

We are discussing the atmosphere, dum dum. I am asking you if GHG immediately warm the surrounding air. Well... does it immediately warm the surrounding air or not?

 

[ding]

It's really odd because when I wake up on cloudy mornings versus clear mornings I can tell a 10 to 20 deg difference due to the GHG effect of clouds. I don't have to wait til Friday to feel the GHG effect of the clouds on Tuesday. I can immediately feel the difference on Tuesday.

It's weird that @oldrocks believes there is a delayed reaction in the atmosphere. Really weird.

 

[abu afak]

It's really odd because when I wake up on cloudy mornings versus clear mornings I can tell a 10 to 20 deg difference due to the GHG effect of clouds. I don't have to wait til Friday to feel the GHG effect of the clouds on Tuesday. I can immediately feel the difference on Tuesday.

It's weird that @oldrocks believes there is a delayed reaction in the atmosphere. Really weird.

LOL. a goofy/riDICKulous intra-day personal anecdote.
It means you LOST and couldn't play real Sci any more.

How long does it take to warm the 70% of the planet that are deep oceans with slightly more CO2 a year allowing them to absorb slightly more heat?
We have, OF COURSE, not yet reached equilibrium for our current 400 PPPM of CO2.
You have repeated and LOST the SAME point at least 10 times.
You are a Troll. (in case someone missed 95% of your 'repLIES.')

`

 

[ding]

LOL. a goofy/riDICKulous intra-day personal anecdote.
It means you LOST and couldn't play real Sci any more.

How long does it take to warm the 70% of the planet that are deep oceans with slightly more CO2 a year allowing them to absorb slightly more heat?
We have, OF COURSE, not yet reached equilibrium for our current 400 PPPM of CO2.
You have repeated and LOST the SAME point at least 10 times.
You are a Troll.

`

Whatever greenhouse effect there is has already been captured by the atmosphere. Previous interglacial were 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2. CO2 lagged temperature so the warming of previous interglacials were due to solar irradiance and albedo. The same factors that drove our present interglacial. The only difference between then and now is we have 120 ppm more CO2 and are 2C cooler. Your explanation is as hollow as your head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing. Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade. An insurance company that is bankrupt does no one any good.

Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing.

Hilarious!!!

Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade.

Not really.

 

[elektra]

Really? 1880-2013 (Columbia Climate and 100 others)

View attachment 578108

This is an awful purty picture.

And wow them there glaciers are all riled up

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have provided NO evidence that man is doing anything. You are spewing OPINION. OPINIONS aren't facts. Science, and the scientific method are very clear. You have NO empirical data to support the claim that man is altering climates ANYWHERE. Mankinds contribution to the global CO2 budget is less than 5%. That is KNOWN. The fact that stupid people think that a trace addition, to a trace gas has ANY effect whatsoever only proves that you are scientifically illiterate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Insurance companies have to raise premiums because the extreme weather events are increasing.

Hilarious!!!

Fires, floods, damaging storms, and heat waves have all been increasing in number decade by decade.

Not really.

Heat Waves And Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather Events â Are They Linked To Greenhouse Gases And Fossil Energies?

The cost to the US of such disasters is enormous and it is accelerating. It would be good to learn to deal with this before it gets worse – and it is getting worse.

www.forbes.com

How is climate linked to extreme weather?

The practice of linking weather events to human-influenced climate change is called attribution studies.

www.metoffice.gov.uk

Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation | US EPA

This indicator tracks the frequency of heavy precipitation events in the United States.

www.epa.gov

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 578979

So here we have a pretend scientist that pretends to be a geologist, and then accuses virtually every other geologist in the world of lying and being a fraud. And some silly lady that pretends to be well educated and spout the fruitloop nonsense of the far right religious nuts. LOL The only evidence that you two have ever presented here is that you seem very deep into some alternative reality.