How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[CrusaderFrank]

That has been done many times on this board. That you are just plain too stupid and too far into your crazy hollow moon and other insane conspiracy theories to understand science is clearly evident.

Modern CO2 is different? Why would temperatures DROP when CO2 is at a peak? Doesn't that invalidate your Cult's "theory"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Average December tornadoes in the US, 23. This December, 150+ and counting. That kind of answer is indicative of basic dishonesty. We have seen very abnormal heat waves creating huge fires this year. We have seen record floods and wind storms. Now we are seeing record tornadoes and number of tornadoes in December. Yes, we have had tornadoes before, we have had fires before, we have had floods before, and we still have far to many lying idiots like you still with us.

Average December tornadoes in the US, 23.

Over what time frame?

We have seen very abnormal heat waves creating huge fires this year.

Abnormal?

Yes, we have had tornadoes before, we have had fires before, we have had floods before, and we still have far to many lying idiots like you still with us.

Aww, shucks, am I making you sad?

 

[Grumblenuts]

How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?

Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.

 

[JLW]

The global warming effects of CO2 has have been known since the mid to late 1800s. Now the effects of all that anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere is warming the planet as predicted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. What is so hard to understand about that.

 

[skookerasbil]

@spotthedummy.com

China Fires Up New Giant Coal Power Plant In Face Of Calls For Cuts | ZeroHedge



Only the climate nutters never get the big picture...it's is quite beyond them!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6]


`

Trustfundie Treehuggers

Before the Industrial Revolution, societies were totalitarian aristocracies with no chance to get out of miserable poverty for all the people who weren't born into the tiny hereditary clique. That is the real motivation for our own decadent HeirHead guillotine-fodder to shut economic growth down.

The uninhibited development of Nature's bountiful resources has been the only cause of class mobility. It is the story of America. Those who inherited their wealth rather than earned it fear being replaced by earners. That desperate fear is transferred to their fake fear of global warming, making them sound passionately sincere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​

By performing lots and lots of acience. Then, collecting all of it and letting it show us what is causing climate change.


The result? The determinations of the IPCC.

 

[ding]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​

By performing lots and lots of acience. Then, collecting all of it and letting it show us what is causing climate change.


The result? The determinations of the IPCC.

You mean the same organization who has a mandate to speak from one voice? That's not how science works.

Why hasn't there been a lab experiment quantifying the associated temperature for various CO2 concentrations? That would be science.

 

[ding]

How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?

Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.

<ahem>

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

AND.... there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[abu afak]

<ahem>

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

AND.... there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Note the use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's TINY.

`

`

 

[ding]

PLAGIARIZED LIST above, and use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's TINY.

`

`

So you didn't see the link? And the words for example?

 

[abu afak]

So you didn't see the link? And the words for example?

I had eliminated 'Plagiarized' just corrected the Misleading "Many."

In fact, the list is from a study written including at least one author "Soon" (I googled) who is actually citing himself/ some of his Own studies (3) and who is Funded by the America Petroleum Institute and Koch Bothers.
LOL

and again Note the use of the subjective/Nothing word "Many."
Actually, when compared with pro-AGW articles it's not 'many,' it's 'TINY.'

`

 

[ding]

I corrected the 'Plagiarized just corrected the Misleading "Many."

In fact, the list is from a study written including at least author "Soon" who is actually citing (himself) his Own studies and who is Funded by the America Petroleum Institute and Koch Bothers.

`

Again... did you not see the words, for example, and understand what they mean?

Science is science.

 

[abu afak]

II`

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You mean the same organization who has a mandate to speak from one voice? That's not how science works.

IPCC isn't one voice. It is 100s of 1000s of voices. The working groups, the researchers, down to the grad students. It is the presented summary of the work of 100s of 1000s of people. And they sign off on it, and every major scientific society across every field of science (naturally, as they contributed their work to it) endorsed the IPCC summaries and proudly show how they contributed to them, if you care to look.

Let's compare that to...whatever it is you think you found on Google or came up with yourself.

All day.

How do we compare?

Well, we could start by you composing an email to a climate scientist. I can send it for you.

 

[ding]

IPCC isn't one voice. It is 100s of 1000s of voices. The working groups, the researchers, down to the grad students. It is the presented summary of the work of 100s of 1000s of people. And they sign off on it, and every major scientific society across every field of science (naturally, as they contributed their work to it) endorsed the IPCC summaries and proudly show how they contributed to them, if you care to look.

Let's compare that to...whatever it is you think you found on Google or came up with yourself.

All day.

How do we compare?

Well, we could start by you composing an email to a climate scientist. I can send it for you.

Since its establishment as a global science-policy interface in 1988, the IPCC proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication, and eventually, climate governance. The Panel is the top layer of a “climate knowledge infrastructure” [Edwards, 2010] with global temperature indicators and global climate models as essential components of consensus-making [Hulme, 2010, p. 562]. By ‘speaking with one voice for global climate science’ — combining highly diverse climate-related knowledge and including expertise from all over the world — the IPCC’s assessment and knowledge synthesis gained legitimacy and authority for policy advice [Beck, Borie et al., 2014; Hulme, 2013].

Science isn't a popularity contest.

 

[abu afak]

Since its establishment as a global science-policy interface in 1988, the IPCC proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication, and eventually, climate governance. The Panel is the top layer of a “climate knowledge infrastructure” [Edwards, 2010] with global temperature indicators and global climate models as essential components of consensus-making [Hulme, 2010, p. 562]. By ‘speaking with one voice for global climate science’ — combining highly diverse climate-related knowledge and including expertise from all over the world — the IPCC’s assessment and knowledge synthesis gained legitimacy and authority for policy advice [Beck, Borie et al., 2014; Hulme, 2013].

Science isn't a popularity contest.

Science is Science, and 90-something percent of scientists and 100% of International Science orgs say the current warming is AGW.
And science (unlike math which deals in proofs) deals in theories affirmed over time.
So it IS in good part a long-running 'popularity contest'/affirmation by ongoing observation: Consensus.

`

 

[Dale Smith]

Science is Science, and 90-something percent of scientists and 100% of International Science orgs say the current warming is AGW.
And science (unlike math which deals in proofs) deals in theories affirmed over time.
So it IS in good part a long-running 'popularity contest'/affirmation by ongoing observation: Consensus.

`

Changing any minds, dipshit???

 

[abu afak]

Changing any minds, dipshit???

I imagine with 37,000+ Views, probably well more than half non-board members, I have indeed changed many minds.

You and your Chemtrails crusade OTOH can't be going well. What with 'the Govt starting COVID so they could plant chips in us with the vaccines' you Conspiratorial mental defectives are peddling.

But thanks for the unwitting bump up. More readers yet.

`

 

[jc456]

I imagine with 37,000+ Views, probably well more than half non-board members, I have indeed changed many minds.

You and your Chemtrails crusade OTOH can't be going well. What with 'the Govt starting COVID so they could plant chips in us with the vaccines' that you Conspiratorial mental defectives are peddling.

But thanks for the unwitting bump up. More readers yet.

`

name a prediction that has come true.

is there such a word as consensus in science?

Why can't you fks ever publish anything that has come true?