How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[deanrd]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

 

[jc456]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

what about them? that's a rather all encompassing sentence.

 

[SSDD]

alfen waves have been pointed out to you before

Nobody cares about alfen waves. Just about cooler surface photons moving toward hotter corona.

People who are wondering what sort of work could move the energy from deep in the sun to the corona wonder....clearly you wouldn't because you have yet to grasp how alfen waves could constitute the work necessary to move the energy.

The work in the Sun's core allows the cooler surface to non-spontaneously radiate through the hotter corona.

Your 40 degree object emits alfen waves? Have you told any plasma physicists about that? I am sure they would be interested.

The work done to heat the flashlight filament allows the photons from the flashlight to hitter the hotter surface of the sun.

Cleary you don't grasp what constitutes work...what sort of work do you think the flashlight is doing that would cause energy to move from a cooler object to a warmer object?

You have early onset dementia? You forget your old claims?

Of course not...and the claims you are making bear no resemblance to any argument I ever put forward... As I said, the concept of work, and what constitutes it clearly escapes you...

Who needs to claim that...it is obvious through observation and measurement.

Yup. Flashlight has a battery. Makes the photons non-spontaneous, remember?

Again...you are confusing work that is necessary to move energy from cool objects to warm objects with the whole discussion over what was a spontaneous process and what wasn't...like I said...over your head...

A 5 year old thinking circles around you. Sad.

Sorry guy...the only one going in circles is you...to bad you have been unable to understand any of the discussions you are referring to.

​

 

[abu afak]

[
Do you think that opening your front door on a frigid winter day makes your house warmer?

Ask Billy Bobb, Weatherman2020 who have recent two day weather as "Climate Cooling, or better yet Skookerassballs who has a several year thread full (with most Deniers) of the same Fallacy.
They never even post the 10 day forecast, just a report or picture of a backyard.

`

`

 

[jc456]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

did you even read the material in the links you provided? I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement. Right?

 

[jc456]

[
Do you think that opening your front door on a frigid winter day makes your house warmer?

Ask Billy Bobb, Weatherman2020 who have recent two day weather as "Climate Cooling, or better yet Skookerassballs who has a several year thread full (with most Deniers) of the same Fallacy.
They never even post the 10 day forecast, just a report or picture of a backyard.

`

`

why didn't you answer Frank? afraid of being proved wrong?

 

[abu afak]

did you even read the material in the links you provided? I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement. Right?

Yes of course you one line Dope.
You didn't read the thread.
One (just one) of the most Poignant is that for the last 50 years Scientists have measured solar output and forcing, and they have not increased...
But temperature has pretty steadily.

Thanks for letting me reiterate/Bump my point you worthless one line heel nipper.
(I waited until it was further down the board to do so.
It's a tactical/IQ thing empty-last-word boy)

`

 

[jc456]

did you even read the material in the links you provided? I expect you can post one paragraph from all of that that actually points to human involvement. Right?

Yes of course you one line Dope.
You didn't read the thread.
One (just one) of the most Poignant is that for the last 50 years Scientists have measured solar output and forcing, and they have not increased...
But temperature has pretty steadily.

Thanks for letting me reiterate/Bump my point you worthless one line heel nipper.
(I waited until it was further down the board to do so.
It's a tactical/IQ thing empty-last-word boy)

`

and yet you can't pop out one thing that shows that humans are a cause to climate change. not one observation. Not fking one!!! all of those scientists and all of that equipment and zip. wow dude, you are some kind of stupid.

 

[Crick]

This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.

 

[westwall]

This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence of human causation.

No it isn't. How many times do you have to be told that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

 

[jc456]

This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.

i'm still waiting for you to tell us what it's actually doing to change climate?

 

[abu afak]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

 

[Wyatt earp]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

Yea like I would believe this is fucking accurate to a degree after he recorded it 100 years ago.

 

[SSDD]

This, in conjunction with the isotopic analysis that clearly shows atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm to have originated in the combustion of fossil fuels, is evidence that anthropogenic factors have been the primary source of the global warming the Earth has experienced over the last 150 years.

Not a bit of observed, measured data in the lot...all models all the time...nothing more than wild assed guesses....climate sceince has littered the scientific landscape of the past 4 decades with failed wild assed guesses...this is just more of the same.

 

[jc456]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

VENDETTA

 

[abu afak]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

Yea like I would believe this is fucking accurate to a degree after he recorded it 100 years ago.


View attachment 281976

I'd like to believe you can show any better measurements.

Then of course there is the Confirmation of Rising Sea level, Melting Glaciers, etc, in that period.

`

 

[SSDD]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

Yea like I would believe this is fucking accurate to a degree after he recorded it 100 years ago.


View attachment 281976

I'd like to believe you can show any better measurements.

Then of course there is the Confirmation of Rising Sea level, Melting Glaciers, etc, in that period.

`

Got any evidence at all that the sea level was lower, and that the glaciers were larger prior to the onset of the little ice age which we are still warming out of? Any at all?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How do you explain this to Republicans when they don’t even understand the concept of fingerprints and identification.

And they think Trump's 11,000 Lies is the same as all the other Presidents' 2 or 3.

They're quantitatively/numerical challenged.
And we're supposed to explain 1 or 1.5 degrees celsius to people who can't distinguish 1 from 1000?

`

Yea like I would believe this is fucking accurate to a degree after he recorded it 100 years ago.


View attachment 281976

I'd like to believe you can show any better measurements.

Then of course there is the Confirmation of Rising Sea level, Melting Glaciers, etc, in that period.

`

No one can, that's the ENTIRE problem



.

 

[abu afak]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`


`​

 

[ReinyDays]

I have no problem with man-kind contributing to the current global warming episode ... but we really don't know how global warming occurs naturally ... and the ice core data is very plain that there are natural causes ... at best we can only speculate how much man-kind contributes ... if you'll pay me 2¢ per click, I'm going to post all kinds of crazy predictions; oceans boiling off by 2050, runaway greenhouse effect, Miley Cyrus' three headed alien love-child ...

The majority of scientists worldwide haven't even taken a class in meteorology, let alone climatology ... typical atmospheric scientist is going hedge on the question, there's still too much we don't know about the climate system to say how much man-kind contributes ...

Research continues ... we'll know what the climate is in year 2100 in just 80 years ...