How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[abu afak]

Based on Science...Climate Change Humans are Causing Global Warming

[...............]

Today’s climate change is driven by human activities.

Scientists know that the warming climate is caused by human activities because:

• They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere
• They know why those gases are increasing in the atmosphere
• They have ruled out other possible explanations

Human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This increase is mostly due to burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to more than 410 parts per million today. Most of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has occurred since the late 1950s. In Earth’s distant past, it would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years to see the amount of change in carbon dioxide levels that humans have caused in just the last 60 years.

Natural changes cannot explain today’s global warming.
It is true that Earth has cycled through many ice ages and warm periods in the past. Those past events have been driven by natural changes such as:

• Variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun
• Solar activity cycles that produce regular shifts in the amount of energy the Sun releases
• Volcanic eruptions that eject dust and gas into the atmosphere, which shade the planet from the Sun’s rays
• Variations in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere

Scientists can measure these natural changes. The warm periods that regularly occurred between the ice ages of the past million years or so can be explained by natural changes, but measurements of those changes today cannot explain the current levels of warming that we are experiencing.

The rapid warming we are experiencing today can only be explained by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures has been clear to scientists since the 1850s. Measurements show that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any other time in the past 1 million years—that is, since the dawn of humankind.
[........]


`

 

[SSDD]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

 

[Billy_Bob]

They understand how heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide work in the atmosphere

This statement displays the total ignorance of science and how that trace gas actually works in our atmosphere. CO2 does not "trap" energy it slows its release by absorption and collision (kinetic transfer). CO2 is incapable of warming with the immediate release of energy and can only warm due to collisions with warmer molecules.

This first statement is totally devoid of fact and is a lie. From this point on your whole premise dies a sordid death.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Natural changes cannot explain today’s global warming.
It is true that Earth has cycled through many ice ages and warm periods in the past. Those past events have been driven by natural changes such as:

• Variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun
• Solar activity cycles that produce regular shifts in the amount of energy the Sun releases
• Volcanic eruptions that eject dust and gas into the atmosphere, which shade the planet from the Sun’s rays
• Variations in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere

Natural change CAN and DOES explain our current warming.

The models they use underestimate the input from natural factors and the combinations of those factors working together. Another bald face lie from your gods... Your models have a margin of error of +/- 7w/m^2. This is a range of 14w/m^2... it takes just 2w/m to change earths temperature by 2 deg C. We have seen a solar origin change of 0.9 w/m^2 and our planet has warmed 0.68 deg C over 100 years. Just the solar component alone can cause all of the change we have seen to date.

Your whole article is a butchered list of outright lies and misstatements.

 

[SSDD]

Poor impotent abu fak....reduced to clicking the funny button as if that were any sort of defense at all for having his ears pinned back with actual evidence...What is it like to be so inadequate and ineffectual that your best response is to click the funny button?

 

[Confounding]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

As far as I'm aware Abu doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. If you actually want to understand more you should go talk to one. Make sure somebody has video of when you tell him he's not doing science right.

 

[SSDD]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

As far as I'm aware Abu doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. If you actually want to understand more you should go talk to one. Make sure somebody has video of when you tell him he's not doing science right.

Unfortunate to believe that only practitioners of a soft science like climatology are able to understand....the fact is, whether you guys care to acknowledge it or not is that we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much....and haven't even begun to scratch the surface as to what effect each of those factors may or may not have on the others and what effect that may have on the climate...to suggest that we know all the factors is simply stupid...and people who believe it, are even more stupid than that.

 

[Confounding]

we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much

Who is doing the scratching?

to suggest that we know all the factors is simply stupid

You have never seen me suggest anything close to that.

 

[SSDD]

we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what factors have an effect on the climate and how much

Who is doing the scratching?

Truthfully? People other than climate scientists. Hell, engineers provide more actual observable, measurable proof regarding the movement of energy through the atmosphere than climate sceince ever has

You have never seen me suggest anything close to that.

I have also never seen you step up and tell someone like abu fak that the material they provide is wrong...in law, silence implies consent...

 

[abu afak]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

Fallacious BS.
I don't need obvious STRAWMAN "ALL".
That's just a laughable chaallenge for every bitty bit of anything that causes climate change.

And it's an excuse for NOT dealing with the Four.

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me abu fak...what are ALL of the "normal" factors that have an effect on the climate? Your post lists 4 as if there were only 4 "normal" factors that effect the climate...what are the rest?

Fallacious BS.
I don't need obvious STRAWMAN "ALL".
That's just a laughable chaallenge for every bitty bit of anything that causes climate change.

And it's an excuse for NOT dealing with the Four.

`

Poor Abu fak fak...

You can't win on anything.. That's what happens when you rely on talking points from Skeptical Shit Science.

Tell me, how the CO2 level changed over the last 14,000 years without man causing it and in very near terms as today's levels..

 

[SSDD]

Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven? Ok course, there are the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff. Not practical way to live.

How is a warmer earth a bad thing? History has shown us that the warmth of the minoan, the roman, and medieval warm periods were good for civilization and all 3 were warmer than the present...and as a species, we changed from hunter gatherers to civilization builders during the holocene optimum...a period that was warmer than either the minoan, roman, or the medieval warm period.

What do you suppose is the ideal temperature on planet earth...warmer or a relatively cold period such as we are in now?

 

[SSDD]

Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven? Ok course, there are the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff. Not practical way to live.

We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS.

How many trillions should we spend on your prudence? Just in case?

What is the price of caution? It's way better than the price of being reckless. We end up extinct, you like that?

Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..

 

[SSDD]

Well we don't. We don't know its human caused. No, But it might be the wiser to assume it IS. Wouldn't that just be prudent until it is disproven? Ok course, there are the Pollyanna's that throw caution to the winds and think happy thoughts and ignore bad stuff. Not practical way to live.

Yeah.. Why not destroy America's economy on a whim?

Ok, spare the snark, bucko. Really? The same economy that gouges for health care, housing and pharmaceuticals? I think we have had enough covering for those jerks. Please, the same assholes that hire illegals and then call it humanitarian whilst Americans lose their jobs and their homes and live in the streets...Those same assholes? Global warming may or not be human caused, don't know. Not going to feel sorry for the globalists that don't give a shit might lose a few dollars trying to rectify it. They lost my sympathy a long time ago.

It's not the globalists that lose their jobs, healthcare, homes and retirement when the economy tanks.

It's the average family.

It's the citizens.

Liberal ideas invariably do the most harm to the people who can least afford it. It is typical of their thinking...they would gladly see millions driven into poverty in order to cause a mild inconvenience to the rich...

 

[SSDD]

What is the price of caution?

According to some, $76 trillion.

It's way better than the price of being reckless.

Could spending $76 trillion to prevent "man made warming" be reckless?

1. It's more than "caution". Read the OP or refute it instead of your usual FALLACIOUS replies with this cost Fallacy I'm busting now.

2. "$76 Trillion" (Google it) is the cost over FORTY Years estimate.
IOW, 1.9 Trillion a Year to the Whole Planet, not just USA.
That is out of $88 Trillion World GDP.
Just over 2%.
What's Cleaner Air, Water, and power worth?
What's Stopping Sea Level rising 6' worth?

3. Your'e a non-conversant Jerk who foists the same fallacious answer daily.
Get a new Toy, I just Busted your only one Clown boy.

`

`

Clean air and water have nothing to do with AGW...and nothing is going to be done towards getting clean air and water so long as the AGW scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasures out of the coffers...that is the degree to which you have been programed...you think that pollution and warming are somehow related...

 

[SSDD]

It is wiser to ignore the hype till such time as climate science can at least produce some observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...till that time, they are simply telling you how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...

There's tons of Evidence posted/linked in My OP from very credible sources.
oooooph
`

Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Your claim that you have provided any such evidence are bullshit...

 

[Wuwei]

Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..

There is a wide range of temperatures that allow people and other life to survive on earth. There is no specific "ideal" temperature within that range.

What people are concerned with is the high rate of change of average temperature. When the change is slow the generations can adapt to it. Centuries ago the smaller populations could easily adapt.

Now there are around 7 billion people. A rapid adaptation is not as feasible. There are dense populations in areas that could be affected. A quick adaptation would be chaotic and expensive. A huge population is on coastlines. Farm areas will have to change. Global chaos is never good.

 

[Wuwei]

Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Your claim that you have provided any such evidence are bullshit...

How do you define "natural variability"? Much of the natural variability over the millions of years came from infrequent catastrophes. The current fast unprecedented rise of CO2 may become a catastrophe. You have to define what you mean by natural variability before the question can be reasonably answered.

As far as observed evidence, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been shown to prevent earth from losing energy as fast as it would ordinarily.

.

 

[SSDD]

Again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth? That question requires an answer before we even begin to consider whether it is even possible to exert control over the global climate..

There is a wide range of temperatures that allow people and other life to survive on earth. There is no specific "ideal" temperature within that range.

What people are concerned with is the high rate of change of average temperature. When the change is slow the generations can adapt to it. Centuries ago the smaller populations could easily adapt.

Now there are around 7 billion people. A rapid adaptation is not as feasible. There are dense populations in areas that could be affected. A quick adaptation would be chaotic and expensive. A huge population is on coastlines. Farm areas will have to change. Global chaos is never good.

Bullshit...see the post on the other thread...it is far to tedious to answer you every where you stalk me to..

 

[SSDD]

Cut and paste a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Your claim that you have provided any such evidence are bullshit...

How do you define "natural variability"? Much of the natural variability over the millions of years came from infrequent catastrophes. The current fast unprecedented rise of CO2 may become a catastrophe. You have to define what you mean by natural variability before the question can be reasonably answered.

As far as observed evidence, CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been shown to prevent earth from losing energy as fast as it would ordinarily.

.

I don't define it anyway...you are the one who must redefine everything in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs.

And if CO2 et al were shown to prevent earth from losing energy as fast as it would otherwise lose it then there would be tropospheric hot spot and the amount of LW at the TOA would not be increasing...your hypothesis is an abject failure...