How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

[SSDD]

1) You believe photons are matter and have mass

I provided you papers in which that topic was discussed

2) You believe photons are affected by magnetic fields

Here is a place for you to begin on that topic...
Q & A: magnetic fields and light | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

3) You believe the Earth's magnetic field holds its atmosphere in place

Interesting that you don't know that without our magnetic field, the atmosphere would be stripped away by the solar wind. Is there any end to your ignorance?

4) You believe the Earth's weather is affected by the pressure of the solar wind

And you don't...how unsurprising. Here, again, a place to start learning something.
How the Solar Wind May Affect Weather and Climate - Eos

Seems that most every skeptic knows more than you cultists who seem to have no informed opinion of your own...but just whatever someone with a political agenda gave you. The thing about being skeptical is that when you see the pseudoscientific bullshit being propagated by climate science, you tend to start researching...and research leads to knowledge...you wack jobs just accept what you are told and apparently don't learn squat....ever.

 

[SSDD]

We have temperature data. We have CO2 level data. We have CO2 absorption spectra. It's you that have absolutely nothing.

Those are just data...you have mountains of data but no actual evidence...

Do you have temperature data which says that the present is somehow beyond the bounds of natural variability? Do you have CO2 level data which says that the present is beyond natural variability? Do you have a single piece of observed measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

Having data doesn't mean you have evidence....you have data upon which you hang assumption after assumption and call it science.

 

[SSDD]

Now your weaseling.

Have you ever participated in an actual debate? Questioning the validity of un-sourced data is perfectly acceptable.

You can't publish a paper (not even a term paper) without sourcing your data.

When it comes to science, you have to show your math ... that is fundamental.

The radiative forcing graphic came from AR5. If you've spent any time here you've seen it dozens and dozens of times.

Got anything other than a model to support those claims of forcing? Didn't think so.

 

[Crick]

Temperatures, CO2 levels and CO2 absorption spectra aren't models.

Your universal rejection of models is unjustified and you're patently ignorant to take such a tack.

 

[mamooth]

A chart is is specifically designed to convince or impress, it's not a conveyor of data in a neutral format.

So, a conspiracy theory about colors was the best you could come up with. So noted. We have hard data, you have the great color conspiracy.

The hard truth is, we can't measure historical temperature accurately across the entire planet to the accuracy of .4 degrees.

Sure we can. Remember, just because you're clueless about statistics, it doesn't meant that everyone else is just as clueless.

If Carbon is as significant in the theory as some are claiming, there would be a much more linear correlation between carbon levels and temperature.

Nonsense. The science says the relationship is logarithmic. This is basic science. That's the ongoing theme here, that you're remarkably ignorant of all the basics.

 

[SSDD]

Temperatures, CO2 levels and CO2 absorption spectra aren't models.

Your universal rejection of models is unjustified and you're patently ignorant to take such a tack.

The actual evidence shows increasing temperatures preceding increased CO2...warmer oceans equal outgassing....more CO2 in the atmosphere...increased CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

 

[Crick]

1) You believe photons are matter and have mass

I provided you papers in which that topic was discussed

2) You believe photons are affected by magnetic fields

Here is a place for you to begin on that topic...
Q & A: magnetic fields and light | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

3) You believe the Earth's magnetic field holds its atmosphere in place

Interesting that you don't know that without our magnetic field, the atmosphere would be stripped away by the solar wind. Is there any end to your ignorance?

4) You believe the Earth's weather is affected by the pressure of the solar wind

And you don't...how unsurprising. Here, again, a place to start learning something.
How the Solar Wind May Affect Weather and Climate - Eos

Seems that most every skeptic knows more than you cultists who seem to have no informed opinion of your own...but just whatever someone with a political agenda gave you. The thing about being skeptical is that when you see the pseudoscientific bullshit being propagated by climate science, you tend to start researching...and research leads to knowledge...you wack jobs just accept what you are told and apparently don't learn squat....ever.

So we can roll you right in with Billy Bob as successful post grads working on your doctorates in extreme bullshit.

 

[ding]

"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.

That’s not entirely correct. Tectonic forces which isolated the polar regions from warmer ocean currents, insolation at critical latitudes, atmospheric CO2 levels and possibly some other trigger such as Gulf Stream switch off played roles in triggering glacial and interglacial cycles.

 

[Crick]

And how rapidly have ANY of those processes taken place compared the CO2 increase and temperature and sea level rise of the last 150 years, much less the last 50?

However, it is a fact that the Milankovich Cycles are most often given top billing for the Earth's glacial cycle. Plate tectonics are not cyclical and the Atlantic basin did not begin to form till the breakup of Pangaea 175 million years ago; 174,800,000 years before the appearance of homo sapiens.

 

[ding]

And how rapidly have ANY of those processes taken place compared the CO2 increase and temperature and sea level rise of the last 150 years, much less the last 50?

However, it is a fact that the Milankovich Cycles are most often given top billing for the Earth's glacial cycle. Plate tectonics are not cyclical and the Atlantic basin did not begin to form till the breakup of Pangaea 175 million years ago; 174,800,000 years before the appearance of homo sapiens.

Sea level rise was much faster at the transition from glacial to interglacial.

There isn’t enough resolution in the geologic record to make the comparison you are trying to make so no one actually knows how the rate of change compares.

 

[ding]

And how rapidly have ANY of those processes taken place compared the CO2 increase and temperature and sea level rise of the last 150 years, much less the last 50?

However, it is a fact that the Milankovich Cycles are most often given top billing for the Earth's glacial cycle. Plate tectonics are not cyclical and the Atlantic basin did not begin to form till the breakup of Pangaea 175 million years ago; 174,800,000 years before the appearance of homo sapiens.

How fast do you believe sea levels are rising?

 

[cnm]

Problem with your rant is, why is it that every government in the world recognizes SSDD's views and not yours as it pertains to energy policy?

Again you are wrong. You can't resist making categorical statements for their rhetorical impact even when you know they are false. Well, that's what denial is about.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Thinking you can control the weather is psycho.

 

[cnm]

Data which doesn't point to a provable theory and which, in documented cases, has been altered or excluded (by both sides) to support one theory or another.

Theories are never proven, they have more or less evidence. Evidence has led to the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

 

[ding]

Doesn’t the sun warm the planet?

 

[bripat9643]

Data which doesn't point to a provable theory and which, in documented cases, has been altered or excluded (by both sides) to support one theory or another.

Theories are never proven, they have more or less evidence. Evidence has led to the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

Wrong. The evidence for that is quite weak.

 

[Crick]

There is strong evidence that the increase of atmospheric CO2 (and methane) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The increased radiative forcing from that CO2 is the largest factor in the warming we have experienced since that time.

What evidence do you believe to be "quite weak"?

 

[IanC]

And how rapidly have ANY of those processes taken place compared the CO2 increase and temperature and sea level rise of the last 150 years, much less the last 50?

However, it is a fact that the Milankovich Cycles are most often given top billing for the Earth's glacial cycle. Plate tectonics are not cyclical and the Atlantic basin did not begin to form till the breakup of Pangaea 175 million years ago; 174,800,000 years before the appearance of homo sapiens.

How fast do you believe sea levels are rising?

An interesting question is....what rate of SLR would the present day satellites and methods have found in 1900 or 1950?

 

[IanC]

Another interesting question is the different rates of warming for land and ocean.

They are connected so supposedly they can only get so far out of whack. Where are we on the spectrum?

Going back to SLR. The maps of SLR show different rates for adjacent areas, sometimes large drops next to large rises. How long before gravity reasserted its authority? Hahahahaha

 

[IanC]

There is strong evidence that the increase of atmospheric CO2 (and methane) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion. The increased radiative forcing from that CO2 is the largest factor in the warming we have experienced since that time.

What evidence do you believe to be "quite weak"?

So you're saying burning fossil fuel brought us out of the Little Ice Age. What put us in it?

If a tiny addition of CO2 in the 1800's caused warming and massive amounts of ice to melt, why is adding 100x more CO2 in the last 25 years having such a small effect?