How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[elektra]

There are links to many sites.
(Columbia, Yale, NASA, among those in my OP)
and I suggest you just type the premise/question in google for many more.

Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!

Like I said, you linked to a blog on a university website that you found using google. The blog expresses and opinion based on a study with limited parameters. Scientists were not asked if they know there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists were not involved in this, "study". It is an opinion piece based on a set of parameters researched against "scientific papers", published behind a wall we must pay to see.

You have not read the study, you do not know the parameters they used. I doubt you could produce them in week let alone a day.

Google is not proof. You search a false premise and google gives you the political answer in which we must believe. That is not scientific, it is political. It is biased. It is propaganda.

Now go ahead and quote directly from that study you refer to and include a link. We will all wait holding our breaths.

Oh, and to correct myself, it is a survey. So post the survey referred to in your google search result.

 

[elektra]

I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere

I made the claim that they were one and the same person. Strange that they are both gone. Kind of sad though, Old Crock is maybe too old to post.

 

[abu afak]

Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!

No it is not.
This is just the Empty/Denialist view of someone on the right, conspiracists, etc.
Again, I suggest you actually type questions into google.. even for such things as error pop-ups. They will give working, not political answers.
Type in the opposite premise to mine if you like.
Many alt-right websites though, which are correct on things like Race, Islam, etc, have been unfairly scoured from youtube and other platforms.

Like I said, you linked to a blog on a university website that you found using google. The blog expresses and opinion based on a study with limited parameters. Scientists were not asked if they know there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists were not involved in this, "study". It is an opinion piece based on a set of parameters researched against "scientific papers", published behind a wall we must pay to see.
You have not read the study, you do not know the parameters they used. I doubt you could produce them in week let alone a day.

Many of the links explain why and NASA also gathers the data/makes the observations itself.
I suggest you read some of the links FOR the reasons why.

At the bottom of most all is the FACT they have measured solar output/forcing/radiation received by the earth, and UNLIKE all other warmings, this one is not caused by increased radiation received due to solar output/earth tilt, etc. Though we still do have some relatively short solar cycles (like minimums) within.
AND: radiation/heat being reflected back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the Greenhouse Gases.

That's basically it/Gameover for you/everyone else here, included SunStrokeTommy.

Google is not proof. You search a false premise and google gives you the political answer in which we must believe. That is not scientific, it is political. It is biased. It is propaganda.

Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.

Now go ahead and quote directly from that study you refer to and include a link. We will all wait holding our breaths.
Oh, and to correct myself, it is a survey. So post the survey referred to in your google search result.

Actually, citing a single study can be misleading/cherry-picking/quote mining, and not understand the overall concepts I posted above.
Good luck with future amateur denials.

`
`

PS: It's incredible how much better/more intelligent the board looks with several prolific Trolls/clowns on ignore: SkookerAssbil, jc456, Toadstoolparrot, etc. May add a few more.
`

 

[ding]

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.

[.....]
`

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.

 

[ReinyDays]

Many of the links explain why and NASA also gathers the data/makes the observations itself.
I suggest you read some of the links FOR the reasons why.

This is patently false ... only NOAA has the extensive network of weather reporting stations and they partner with the other of the world's weather agencies to provide NASA with the observational data they use ... a common mistake ... NASA is conducting experiments in order to remotely gather this data, but that's all experimental at this point ... our climate data is still coming from NOAA ...

At the bottom of most all is the FACT they have measured solar output/forcing/radiation received by the earth, and UNLIKE all other warmings, this one is not caused by increased radiation received due to solar output/earth tilt, etc. Though we still do have some relatively short solar cycles (like minimums) within.
AND: radiation/heat being reflected back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the Greenhouse Gases.

Let's see your numbers ... what is the measure of radiative forcing? ... what is the measure of radiation/heat being reflected back out? ... which wavelengths are being blocked by GHG, and what part of the energy? ...

Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.

The physics portions of any discussion regarding radiative physics must have mathematical proofs ... or it's conjecture, not theory ... please, a link to the derivation of your claims ... specifically, what is the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration, radiative forcing, emissivity and surface temperature ...

Some of the science is settled ... but much of it is not ... you Alarmists seem to have this backwards ... ignoring what is settled, and believing what hasn't been demonstrated ...

 

[PredFan]

Google is a big liberal democrat propaganda biased political site. All I have to do is type your false premise into google and, "believe"!

No it is not.
This is just the Empty/Denialist view of someone on the right, conspiracists, etc.
Again, I suggest you actually type questions into google.. even for such things as error pop-ups. They will give working, not political answers.
Type in the opposite premise to mine if you like.
Many alt-right websites though, which are correct on things like Race, Islam, etc, have been unfairly scoured from youtube and other platforms.

Like I said, you linked to a blog on a university website that you found using google. The blog expresses and opinion based on a study with limited parameters. Scientists were not asked if they know there is man-made global warming. 97% of scientists were not involved in this, "study". It is an opinion piece based on a set of parameters researched against "scientific papers", published behind a wall we must pay to see.
You have not read the study, you do not know the parameters they used. I doubt you could produce them in week let alone a day.

Many of the links explain why and NASA also gathers the data/makes the observations itself.
I suggest you read some of the links FOR the reasons why.

At the bottom of most all is the FACT they have measured solar output/forcing/radiation received by the earth, and UNLIKE all other warmings, this one is not caused by increased radiation received due to solar output/earth tilt, etc. Though we still do have some relatively short solar cycles (like minimums) within.
AND: radiation/heat being reflected back out into space is being Blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the Greenhouse Gases.

That's basically it/Gameover for you/everyone else here, included SunStrokeTommy.

Google is not proof. You search a false premise and google gives you the political answer in which we must believe. That is not scientific, it is political. It is biased. It is propaganda.

Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.

Now go ahead and quote directly from that study you refer to and include a link. We will all wait holding our breaths.
Oh, and to correct myself, it is a survey. So post the survey referred to in your google search result.

Actually, citing a single study can be misleading/cherry-picking/quote mining, and not understand the overall concepts I posted above.
Good luck with future amateur denials.

`
`

PS: It's incredible how much better/more intelligent the board looks with several prolific Trolls/clowns on ignore: SkookerAssbil, jc456, Toadstoolparrot, etc. May add a few more.
`

You actually said that Google wasn’t a biased political site? And you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[LaDairis]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.

We know that the Earth climate is 99% about where land is, which is why Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic.....

 

[ding]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.

We know that the Earth climate is 99% about where land is, which is why Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic.....

Sure. Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

And the destruction of the ozone layer has nothing to do with it. Sure. Uh huh
If you blame anybody on this conspiracy. Blame irresponsible industrial corporations and reckless science.. Not the population.
Now lets go mine lithium and build desposable batteries to solve it all
Only makes sense if you ay the stock market of course.
Perhaps a few more nuclear plants around fukushima as well. I heard uranium imining stocks are doing good again. It must be good for the environment.

 

[ReinyDays]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.

We know that the Earth climate is 99% about where land is, which is why Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic.....

Sure. Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.

70% of climate is where oceans are ... wow ... just wow ...

Glaciers don't form at the North Pole ... [shrugs shoulders] ... sorry, but that's life ...

 

[ding]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change? We don't.

We know that the Earth climate is 99% about where land is, which is why Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic.....

Sure. Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.

70% of climate is where oceans are ... wow ... just wow ...

Glaciers don't form at the North Pole ... [shrugs shoulders] ... sorry, but that's life ...

They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it. The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too. Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet. The latter just isn't going to happen.

 

[ReinyDays]

They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it. The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too. Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet. The latter just isn't going to happen.

I think you're confusing "sea ice" with "glaciers" ... those are two different things that form in two different ways ... having different reactions to carbon dioxide ... my point is that we have glaciers growing here in the Northern Hemisphere in spite having 415 ppm ... why are you saying 280 ppm is the cutoff and it's physically impossible for glaciers to be expanding? ... and there are glaciers retreating in the Southern Hemisphere, yet still under your 600 ppm figure ... this doesn't make any sense ...

Why on Earth are you worried about glacial cycles? ... seriously, you're ready fro a sub-900 mb Cat 5 hurricane landing on your beach house? ...

 

[ding]

They do, but not as readily as they do at the southern pole which has a continent parked on it. The oceans and the sun are major players in climate but landmass configuration and atmospheric CO2 play their parts too. Which is why we should be more worried about glacial cycles rather than a runaway greenhouse planet. The latter just isn't going to happen.

I think you're confusing "sea ice" with "glaciers" ... those are two different things that form in two different ways ... having different reactions to carbon dioxide ... my point is that we have glaciers growing here in the Northern Hemisphere in spite having 415 ppm ... why are you saying 280 ppm is the cutoff and it's physically impossible for glaciers to be expanding? ... and there are glaciers retreating in the Southern Hemisphere, yet still under your 600 ppm figure ... this doesn't make any sense ...

Why on Earth are you worried about glacial cycles? ... seriously, you're ready fro a sub-900 mb Cat 5 hurricane landing on your beach house? ...

Whatever those things are. That's what I am talking about. If you want to play dumb about different thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation, that's your mistake to make.

 

[ReinyDays]

Sure. Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.

Whatever those things are. That's what I am talking about. If you want to play dumb about different thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation, that's your mistake to make.

That's not how physics works ... unless you can explain why ... the radiative qualities of CO2 are the same either side of the equator ... I understand a computer programmer can make a simulation give these results ... echo "See, I'm right"; ... that's just part of the statistical arts, doesn't mean there's any basis in fact ...

Why are these "tipping points" so vastly different ... and what empirical data confirms this ...

 

[ding]

Sure. Extensive glaciation occurs at the south pole at 600 ppm. Whereas at the north pole it's 280 ppm.

Whatever those things are. That's what I am talking about. If you want to play dumb about different thresholds for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation, that's your mistake to make.

That's not how physics works ... unless you can explain why ... the radiative qualities of CO2 are the same either side of the equator ... I understand a computer programmer can make a simulation give these results ... echo "See, I'm right"; ... that's just part of the statistical arts, doesn't mean there's any basis in fact ...

Why are these "tipping points" so vastly different ... and what empirical data confirms this ...

That is how physics works. You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate. Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors. The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration. It's not even a up for debate. No one questions this.

 

[ReinyDays]

That is how physics works. You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate. Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors. The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration. It's not even a up for debate. No one questions this.

I have to guess here, but I think you're talking about continentality ... and that only effects climates on land, mostly in the temperate cell ... that averages out over the year ... colder in winter, warming in summer; so a wash in our climate averages, and just over land ... obviously, there's no continentality over the oceans ...

If your mind is set in stone in this, then don't be upset if people called you closed-minded ... there's no debate until you can use the right words ...

 

[ding]

That is how physics works. You are dismissing the role land masses play in climate. Earth's climate at any given time is dependent upon a whole host of factors. The two polar regions have different atmospheric CO2 thresholds for glaciation because of our current plate tectonic configuration. It's not even a up for debate. No one questions this.

I have to guess here, but I think you're talking about continentality ... and that only effects climates on land, mostly in the temperate cell ... that averages out over the year ... colder in winter, warming in summer; so a wash in our climate averages, and just over land ... obviously, there's no continentality over the oceans ...

If your mind is set in stone in this, then don't be upset if people called you closed-minded ... there's no debate until you can use the right words ...

I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded. Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something? Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer. Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation. This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded. Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something? Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer. Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation. This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.

Oh ... you're talking about weather then ... sorry ... yes, in science, words have specific meanings ... climate is the average over a long period of time of weather ... so when you use the word climate, I assume that's what you're talking about ... take a class or read a decent textbook ...

Do you agree you're talking about continentality? ... or is there something else you have in mind? ...

 

[ding]

I'm OK with people believing I am closed minded. Do you have a teachers edition on using the "right words" or something? Cause I don't think I could have been any clearer. Our planet is tectonically (northern pole isolated from warmer marine currents) and atmospherically (CO2 of 400 ppm) configured for bipolar glaciation. This has led to greater temperature swings for the planet primarily because of northern hemisphere glaciation.

Oh ... you're talking about weather then ... sorry ... yes, in science, words have specific meanings ... climate is the average over a long period of time of weather ... so when you use the word climate, I assume that's what you're talking about ... take a class or read a decent textbook ...

Do you agree you're talking about continentality? ... or is there something else you have in mind? ...

No. I'm talking about climate. I would say that greenhouse worlds, icehouse worlds and the conditions that led to them would be climate discussions.

But if you want to keep playing silly games... why is it that you are so ignorant of the background conditions that led to true climate changes?

 

[ReinyDays]

No. I'm talking about climate. I would say that greenhouse worlds, icehouse worlds and the conditions that led to them would be climate discussions.
But if you want to keep playing silly games... why is it that you are so ignorant of the background conditions that led to true climate changes?

Are you speaking about continentality? ... third time I've asked ... background conditions are found in the O-18 proxy or ice core data ...