How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

[fncceo]

Atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet.

And not a moment too soon for me...

 

[Crick]

it's a guess

No, it is not. It is the conclusion of thousands of published scientific studies and refuted by essentially none.

 

[skookerasbil]

Actually......nobody "knows". Some scientists speculate.....many others reject it.

It's a theory....nobody alive has any proof. It's the only thing we "know".

Years ago, guesses made to look like science were considered ghey. Now? Anything goes....tens of thousands of MA and PHd scientists concur with sk00ks!

 

[skookerasbil]

Atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet.

And not a moment too soon for me...

I just spit on my phone.....

When the social oddballs of the planet get pwnd, not sure wtf it is but my whole life its a hoot.

Fnccceo just has a manner of making them to appear as such simpletons!

 

[skookerasbil]

Global Warming Petition Project

30,000 scientists say meh

They must all be owned by Big Oil!

 

[Crick]

Karl et al...

Does he make you speechless?

God I love when liberals post up bull shit..

Not enough, however, to tell us what you think to be bullshit and why.

Every one of their POTENTIAL predictions are base on MODELS that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. Everything is "we believe"...

You don't make predictions without making use of a model. Period.

You have never justified your broad brush condemnation of GCM models.

Your final comment re "We believe" simply tells us that you don't understand the basics of the scientific method.

And then the all powerful Appeal to Authority..... the IPCC authorities who have been shown corrupt and deceptive..

The IPCC has not been shown corrupt or deceptive. And as I have pointed out on multiple occasions, an appeal to an authority that is a demonstrable expert on the topics under discussion IS VALID. That is most certainly the case here.

Tell Me, The IPCC stated that we were all going to burn up by 2012

They said no such thing.

and that the point of no return was then.

There is a significant chance that it was.

They used the Climate sensitivity of 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 in 1990 when this prediction was made. 2012 came an went without runaway temperatures and their predictions failed out side of 4 standard deviations. SO far out that the models used are considered useless for anything.

That is incorrect. I suspect you are judging GCMs by the specious graphic created by Dr Roy Spencer a few years back. That work is false. Your 6C climate sensitivity is also false. "The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C" --
Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia

The last three years we have massive cooling of the earths atmosphere.

That statement is false

From Listen to the Earth smash another global temperature record

The IPCC lowered their climate sensitivity to 0.0 - 1.1 deg C per doubling of CO2

This statement is false.

FAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
SAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
TAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
AR4: 2 - 4.5C
AR5: 1.25 - 2.45

Your Karl Et Al [sic] adjustments, designed to give false warming, are exposed as the fraud they are. The Empirical evidence show this whole meme a lie and a deception.

You have presented absolutely nothing here that would show Karl et al to be a fraud. Everything you have stated here was demonstrably false.

 

[Chuz Life]

Several threads have been running on this board claiming over and over again that no evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. The purpose of this thread is to counter that falsehood.

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

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

1) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

I hope this post will help pay my LP bill this month.

 

[SSDD]

Several threads have been running on this board claiming over and over again that no evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. The purpose of this thread is to counter that falsehood.

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

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

1) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

Look whose still stinging over not being able to produce any actual measured evidence to support his beliefs. Can you bring anything from this latest foray into pseudoscience which challenges any of the three following statements? My bet is no.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses in a published paper.

 

[SSDD]

How do we know that atmospheric CO2 is heating the ocean?

We don't. We just made that up because we needed a brand new data set to make the fictional global warming narrative look plausible

It is well known that a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...anyone who believes it can believes in perpetual motion and is a certifiable nut ball.

 

[SSDD]

Atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet. The ocean simply gets most of that energy due to its specific heat capacity.

Please quote the physical law which states that a body can be warmed by its own radiation. I would be very interested in hearing it.

 

[SSDD]

Earth's glaciers are melting at a rate of 400 billion tons per year. That is just slightly less than the sum of Greenland and Antarctic melting and, like them, all that meltwater raises sea level.

You are presenting that bullshit as if glaciers never retreated before the invention of the internal combustion engine...

Good enough to fool you though...right skidmark?

 

[SSDD]

Sea level rise

Probably the most visible affect of global warming. Rising sea level is leading to increased coastal flooding and enhanced storm surge. Before the century is out, over a hundred million people worldwide will have to relocate away from the coasts. Increased damage from storm surge and storms strengthened by warmer and warmer sea surface temperatures will cost humanity billions and billions of dollars annually.

View attachment 243380

You wack jobs always take the short view because it allows you to mislead people with your alarmist narrative...when you take the longer view, which is necessary when speaking of the global climate, your hysterical handwaving takes on a circus quality for the sheer stupidity of it.

Here, have a look at the long view and then tell me again about what "we" are causing.

 

[SSDD]

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

Ocean Acidification
"Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION."

Mollusks, arthropods and corals all build exoskeletal structures by extracting calcium carbonate from sea water. As our oceans absorb billions of tons of CO2 from the air, the solubility of CaCO3 increases making it more and more difficult for these many life forms to perform this basic and critical function. Additionally, unlike life ashore, marine life exists intimately surrounded by a solvent fluid. Almost every single biological function they undertake uses the surrounding water as a medium. Changes in its chemistry affect functions of every description. But most critically, it can affect reproduction and has already been found to do so in a multitude of marine organisms.

Deniers will point out the several times in Earth's geological history in which atmospheric CO2 became much higher than current levels without significant harm to marine life. The answer, as with almost all AGW effects, is in the timing. Past CO2 excursions took place over tens of thousands of years. Increases in ocean acidity were buffered by the dissolution of calcium carbonate (limestone) ashore that was then washed into the seas. The rate of acidification was slow enough that this process was able to compensate for the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and many species were able to make compensatory biological adaptations. The current rate of increase is thousands of times faster than anything in the Earth's geological record. There will not be time for compensation or adaptation.

How did all the poor creatures survive the 1000+ atmospheric CO2 prior to the last ice age? The very species that are living in the oceans today?

 

[SSDD]

it's a guess

No, it is not. It is the conclusion of thousands of published scientific studies and refuted by essentially none.

Without a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Withoutt a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Without a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

With no evidence, how did this consensus come to be reached? My bet is that tens of trillions of dollars could bring muslims and southern baptists to consensus... You are a top shelf dupe.

 

[Crick]

A post without a single truthful statement. If anyone is tempted to believe Same Shit Different Day, please review "The Physical Science Basis at www.ipcc.ch

 

[Likkmee]

Because of cow farts you meat eating savages !

 

[Crick]

They're in the list. They're also bad for the environment because to produce one pound of beef requires :

"Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,799 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 576 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 216 gallons; corn is 108 gallons."
Meat’s large water footprint: why raising livestock and poultry for meat is so resource-intensive – Food Tank

Livestock matters because it is the biggest land user in the world. More land is given over to grazing animals than for any other single purpose. About a third of the world’s crops are fed to animals, and they use a third of all available fresh water. Something like 1.3 billion people depend in some way on raising animals; animals provide a third of the protein in peoples’ diets and the business accounts for a third of global agricultural GDP. But meat is an inefficient source of calories. It accounts for 17% of global calorific intake, but uses twice that amount of land, water and feed.

Livestock also damages the environment. It accounts for between 8% and 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions, depending on how you account for changes in land use (when the Amazon is cut down for pasture, carbon emissions rise). Roughly a fifth of all the world’s pasture has been degraded by overgrazing. Livestock uses water inefficiently: you need about 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilo of beef but only 1,250 litres for a kilo of maize or wheat. And animals form a significant reservoir of diseases that affect humans; avian flu, the best known example, is far from an isolated case: 60% of human diseases are shared with animals and three quarters of new infectious diseases of people were first found in animals.
Meat and greens

 

[IanC]

This statement is false.

FAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
SAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
TAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
AR4: 2 - 4.5C
AR5: 1.25 - 2.45

Where did you get those figures for AR5? I haven't seen them before. I was under the impression that the range had simply reverted back to 1.5 to 4.5 in the last report.

 

[Crick]

The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. It is the 05-95% Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. You could be right; I could have picked up the wrong figure. The crucial point there was that they were NEVER 0.0-1.1 as Billy Bob just claimed.

 

[Crick]

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

Ocean Acidification
"Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION."

Mollusks, arthropods and corals all build exoskeletal structures by extracting calcium carbonate from sea water. As our oceans absorb billions of tons of CO2 from the air, the solubility of CaCO3 increases making it more and more difficult for these many life forms to perform this basic and critical function. Additionally, unlike life ashore, marine life exists intimately surrounded by a solvent fluid. Almost every single biological function they undertake uses the surrounding water as a medium. Changes in its chemistry affect functions of every description. But most critically, it can affect reproduction and has already been found to do so in a multitude of marine organisms.

Deniers will point out the several times in Earth's geological history in which atmospheric CO2 became much higher than current levels without significant harm to marine life. The answer, as with almost all AGW effects, is in the timing. Past CO2 excursions took place over tens of thousands of years. Increases in ocean acidity were buffered by the dissolution of calcium carbonate (limestone) ashore that was then washed into the seas. The rate of acidification was slow enough that this process was able to compensate for the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and many species were able to make compensatory biological adaptations. The current rate of increase is thousands of times faster than anything in the Earth's geological record. There will not be time for compensation or adaptation.

How did all the poor creatures survive the 1000+ atmospheric CO2 prior to the last ice age? The very species that are living in the oceans today?

Read the paragraph immediately above your question.