How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Stryder50]

Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;
...

I provided a HUGE amount of charts: a fair unbiased search term.

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

Those look pretty damn consistent to any fair observer and Refute Stryder25.

At least the first 30 Confirmed you the Dishonest Cherry-picker you are.
AND Continue to be/do it again!
You got Crushed Flat Earth boy.
And cherry-picking a few more only proves MY point.

And No doubt you're going to see a Picture show below.
Trying to Bury/COMPENSATE the fact with Color and Volume... as Stryder12.5 did in his first group of crayolas.

(thx for the page top)


PS: WHY this warming is DIFFERENT than other 'cycles' (isn't a cycle) is also explained Multiple times in the OP.




`

Well "abu afugabuoy" your linked page shows about 340+ graphs, charts, and images and some show the doctored data to support ACC/AGW and many others show the opposite. One excellent offering is this one;
Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

11/28/2018 16:11 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

The role of CO2 has been heavily disputed over the last century. In 1970, scientists were convinced CO2’s greenhouse effect was already saturated, even at concentrations measured at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1850) when CO2 was at around 300 parts per million. Saturation means that adding more CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures.
Later some climate scientists started to doubt that fact, so it’s important to include CO2 concentration measurements or proxies in this overview.


The geological timescale – 570 million years

On this timescale, we observe the largest climate fluctuations. Continents were formed and ocean currents changed in the process.
Temperatures were very high, 15 to 20 °C higher than now. During most parts of this period, no sub-zero temperatures were measured anywhere on Earth, so ice-caps were absent.
CO2 levels were very high, above 5,000 parts per million during most of this period. That’s 12 times the current levels. Live on Earth flourished, the continents were covered with thick woods and in the oceans, coral riffs started to grow. Carbon deposits were created in the form of deep ocean sediments, carbonaceous rocks and fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.


55 Million years ago, with CO2 levels still well above 1,000 ppm, global temperatures started to decline sharply. These CO2 levels are considered extremely dangerous by the IPCC and according to them, those concentrations could cause a runaway warming process. Real-world measurements, however, show us the contrary. Temperatures declined.
This contradicts the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis.

It’s very clear that seen on this timescale, both the modern temperatures and CO2 concentrations are extremely low. There is, however, no clear correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Other factors like continent formation, volcanism and ocean currents ruled the climate changes.

The Quaternary timescale – 2.5 million years

This timescale is marked by the latest and current ice age.

Over 30 glacial periods have been defined in this period. These glacial periods are separated by interglacials, each one of them lasting around 10 thousand years. The Holocene is the current interglacial we’re living in.

In one complete glaciation cycle, worldwide average temperatures fluctuate around 12 °C between the deepest glacial minimum and the warmest interglacial optimum.

Over this whole period of 2.5 million years, both the Earth’s polar regions present permanent land ice. As a result of glaciations, the North Pole ice cap can reach as far south as the current locations of New York and London.

In the figure above, we observe the latest three glacial cycles.
Seen on this timescale, we currently live in a warm period that has enabled humans to develop. However, we observe that the current interglacial is not as warm as the previous ones. Current temperatures are not extreme in a Quaternary context.
...
If we take the CO2-temperature relation the other way around, we obtain the following line of reasoning:


Milankovitch cycles
>
temperature fluctuations
>
CO2 concentration fluctuations

Now everything fits together.

The Milankovitch cycles are small alterations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, like the orientation of Earth’s axis (precession), eccentricity and variations in the axial tilt that create cyclical variations in the solar energy input. These external influences result in the cyclical temperature fluctuations known as glacials and interglacials, more or less the same way the Earth’s axial tilt creates the seasons but with a much longer cycle length.

Warm oceans can contain less CO2. So, when oceans warm, CO2 from the oceans is released into the atmosphere.

As CO2 levels are extremely low at the onset of each warming cycle, well below the saturation point of its greenhouse effect, there might be a small positive feedback of CO2-induced warming that helps the other natural factors to lift the Earth out of each glaciation. But when temperature CO2-concentration reaches a certain level the warming stops.

We must conclude that CO2 concentration trails temperature. Temperature fluctuations are the cause, CO2 level variations are the consequence.
...
The Holocene timescale – 10 thousand years

Fifteen thousand years ago, global temperatures started to rise as Earth came out of the latest glacial period.

Welcome to the Holocene!

This interglacial has allowed the human race to develop like never before.
The Holocene Optimum was reached 8 thousand years ago with temperatures around 4 °C higher than today. Since then, temperatures have steadily declined, with some ups and downs like the Minoan Warm Period (3,500 years ago) the Roman Warm Period (2,000 years ago), the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) and the Little Ice Age that ended 200 years ago.

On this scale, we’re living in a cold period recovering from the extremes of Little Ice Age. Over 90% of the Holocene has been warmer than today.

CO2 levels have been rising over the last 8 thousand years to around 300 parts per million at the end of the Little Ice Age.
So, temperatures fell while CO2 concentration increased. This contradicts any claim that there is a positive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

Modern Warming – 200 years

Temperatures are recovering from the coldest period of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age, so there has been some warming over the past 200 years.

There have been intervals with a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, but during two periods, from 1940 until 1975 and since 2000 until now, the correlation has been inversed. Rising CO2 concentrations coupled with falling temperatures.
This is in contradiction with the CO2-hypothesis.


Conclusions

• Global temperatures are recovering from the coldest period (Little Ice Age) of a warm period (Holocene) within one of the coldest periods (Quaternary) of Earth’s history
• It is not true that we are breaking temperature records. Moreover, we’re much closer to breaking all-time cold records then all-time highs
• It is true that CO2 concentration levels are the highest of the past 2.5 million years
• It is true that rising CO2 levels are due to human carbon emissions
• It is not true that these high CO2 levels are a threat to life on Earth. Life started and thrived at much higher global temperatures and CO2 levels
• It is not true that CO2 concentration fluctuations are the main driver for temperature variation. None of the four timescales we've observed show evidence of a clear positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

So the CO2-hypothesis is contradicted by real-world, empirical observations.

View the facts without prejudice.

Tom van Leeuwen, November 2018.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture | Holoceneclimate.com

When discussing 'Climate Change' it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference in order to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

holoceneclimate.com

 

[Stryder50]

That first chart in the above post only shows back to about 570 million years before the present. It' even more interesting if we show it as done going back even further;

Blog chia sẻ kinh nghiệm cá cược online

Confirming that over the history of this planet, CO2 levels are not linked nor drive the temperatures, that it likely is the other way around.

 

[Stryder50]

Here's an interesting excerpt from one of the charts on the link you provided;
...

I provided a HUGE amount of charts: a fair unbiased search term.

co2 temperature - Google Search

www.google.com

At least the first 30 Confirmed you the Dishonest Cherry-picker you are.
AND Continue to be/do it again!
You got Crushed Flat Earth boy.
And cherry-picking a few more only proves MY point.

(thx for the page top)



`

A "HUGE amount of charts " from a range of sources and biases.
Actual, #24 (of those first 30) is this which I've provided a couple of times;

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...llion-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391

Only one "crushed" is you by your ignorance, or delusions.
FWIW, I'm just the opposite of "Flat Earth boy " since I'm the one whom advocates that Earth is not a good metric for exobiology as being the only example of plate tectonics and near co-planetary orbiting satellite puts our wold in a very unique category. Such as the tidal hydrosphere with tidal based biosphere making such things like geoducs possible and a hot connoisseur item on Rigel 7 and Alpha-Centauri B 3.

Meanwhile you fail to prove how one molecule's IR retention cause the other 2,499 molecules in ratio to also become warmer. You may want to refresh on basic sciences and maths.

As for: "(thx for the page top)" ~ anything to help you show how much a fool and flop you are.

So 29 out of 30 agree with AGW, not that the one you CHERRY PICKED doesn't.

You used the 'Berner' graph which is Not in conflict with current climate warming theory.

​

Yale Obit: "...Arguably his broadest impact has been in the area of carbon cycling. For example, Bob spearheaded the quantitative interpretation of the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the last 600 million years of Earth history. His work provided the basis for virtually all modern carbon cycling research going on today. This understanding of past CO2 levels and paleoclimates has provided an invaluable baseline of comparison for determining the impact of today’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the atmosphere and the associated climate change.”.."​

In memoriam: Robert Berner, a ‘giant of geology’​

That would be the same Yale in the OP!
Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections


What you stupidly or disingenuously picked was a scaling error.
A 600 Million year old graph to look at whether the CO2/GHGs from the 150 yr old Industrial revolution affected climate of the last thousands, tens/hundreds of Thousands!
Like looking at a long distance astronomical photo of earth to decide if people are dying of bee stings in the 21st Century.
A huge non-analogous comparison that doesn't show all the other Major conditions that affected temp over hundreds of millions of years: now irrelevant.

Like the two IDIOTIC posts of 'ding,' with' continental drift. (YOU thanked)
That does NOT go to CO2 or other GHGs warming the climate in the last century+.
It's Numb Nuts/Irrelevant unless I was claiming there are/were NO other factors in warming.. ever!

That's why we can see the Co2 (other GHG) fantastic correlation on shorter scale/more analogous graphs of OUR age and those closer. The other 29 of 30 graphs (You ***hole).

That answers you, Ding-bat and Tommy.

I must say Stryder6.25, since you aren't ignorant, you must understand the above, and see the overwhelming evidence of the Google Link Graphs, that you are being DISHONEST for argument sake (not ignorant) because you're a RW Partisan Hack/Blinded.
But you're not smart enough to pull it off against me.

Gameover #8476.

`

Your delusions run deep, and it's not about "pull it off against" you, so much as counter your disinformation. I doubt you will change your stance since you are a true-believer in ACC/AGW but not enough to display integrity of your conviction to reduce your part of CO2 emissions to zero.

It's more about showing counter information and data, such as that through the history of the Earth, there is no evidence to show that CO2 levels in the past ever caused temperature increases, that if anything it's the opposite.

Laws of physics and chemistry didn't change in the past couple hundred of years due to the onset of the Industrial Age or human activity. Honest and objective data and evidence shows no proof of CO2 levels being a major-primary driver of average global temperatures.

"Game" is far from over, barely is afoot.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It has been known for many years that major CO2 changes FOLLOWS major Temperature changes with lag between 200-800 years, also known that CO2 is essential for Photosynthesis, and long known that more CO2 is essential for increased plant growth.

It is well known for many years that CO2 absorbs very little of the IR window, and contributes very little to the postulated heat budget, and that is nearly saturated at the 430 ppm level. The rise of 150 ppm added very little to the heat budget, this after 140 years!

Yet we see warmist/alarmists still cling to see the CO2 as a deadly molecule calling it a "pollutant", a threat to run away warming run this is incredibly stupid and irrational for obvious reasons, yet it eludes a class of people completely anyway. It is scary when such people are unaware of their irrational beliefs having been brainwashed so successfully by the media and lying scientists who have since been utterly discredited.

 

[abu afak]

The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data. Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.

Just to be clear as re the positions of (Already refuted 600-million-year graph) Stryder and SunsetTommy (reports posts of opponents), all deny CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and Humans cause Any warming through not just that gas, but others like Methane/CH4.
Just to clarify how bad/Ignorant things are here.

Altho SunsetTommy usually just 'likes' those posts/cheers on the Deniers (GW AND AGW) he knows are Wrong.
Correct Tommy?
Why don't you clarify your position precisely for your friends. (Stryder et al)

(Post COPIED for reposting if removed, as all from now on will be)

 

[ding]

The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data. Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.

Just to be clear as re the positions of (Already refuted 600-million-year graph) Stryder and SunsetTommy (reports posts of opponents), all deny CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and Humans cause Any warming through not just that gas, but others like Methane/CH4.
Just to clarify how bad/Ignorant things are here.

Altho SunsetTommy usually just 'likes' those posts/cheers on the Deniers (GW AND AGW) he knows are Wrong.
Correct Tommy?
Why don't you clarify your position precisely for your friends. (Stryder et al)

(Post COPIED for reposting if removed, as all from now on will be)

Just to be clear... why do you want the planet to get colder during an ice age?

Is it because you live in a shit hole middle eastern country or something?

 

[Stryder50]

Here's something that can apply here, and in other related threads;
The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined
The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.
...

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

The sun radiates far more high-frequency light than expected, raising questions about unknown features of the sun’s magnetic field and the possibility of even more exotic physics.

getpocket.com

 

[Crick]

If you're suggesting this as an alternative to AGW, you have a number of problems. The solar gamma excess cycles in synch with the sun's 11-year cycle. No such cycle is seen in warming. And, this would not explain the outgoing IR observations. And, of course, alternative energy sources are not required because excess GHG's in the atmosphere fully explain the observed warming.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

We've been watching the monkeys.. and they aren't doing it.

 

[Crick]

An isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere shows that an amount precisely equal to the extra 140ppm is the product of fossil fuel combustion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ah, c'mon. That's just one rather short, punchy sentence. Stryder50 wrote like pages above including this killer profundity, which was even shorter by the way:

The role of CO2 has been heavily disputed over the last century.

So take that, ya big meanie!

 

[Stryder50]

The reason we know for certain that there is no AGW is because the idiot climate scientists that are saying there is have made up data. Blatant fraudulent data manipulation.

Just to be clear as re the positions of (Already refuted 600-million-year graph) Stryder and SunsetTommy (reports posts of opponents), all deny CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas and Humans cause Any warming through not just that gas, but others like Methane/CH4.
Just to clarify how bad/Ignorant things are here.

Altho SunsetTommy usually just 'likes' those posts/cheers on the Deniers (GW AND AGW) he knows are Wrong.
Correct Tommy?
Why don't you clarify your position precisely for your friends. (Stryder et al)

(Post COPIED for reposting if removed, as all from now on will be)

In your delusional mind you think you refuted "A GRAPH", but that is only one of several others that provide the same data; that there has been natural climate change, between global warming and global cooling cycles, ever since Earth acquired an atmosphere over four billion years ago.

We have not denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, - that is a blanat lie on your part, but nothing new about that, fits your MO.

Our position is only that it is not the main/primary driver of global warming and that there is little data to support such a role over the past four+ billion years, especially over the past two billion years once CO2 volume drastically reduced to be replaced by O2.

CO2 is currently about 400 ppm(dry) parts per million in the dry(not counting water vapor) atmosphere, or a ratio of 1 part CO2 to the 2,499 other parts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. in the dry atmosphere. And this is an average number which varies in different parts of the world.

Methane/CH4 is at best 2(1.8) parts ppm for a ratio of 1/500,000 compared to the rest of the atmosphere.

The absurd claim with regard to human caused global warming/climate change (AGW/ACC) is that these minute amounts of greenhouse gases(ghg) are what is heating the rest of the atmosphere of "non" greenhouse gases. Ratios of 1/2,500 for CO2 and 1/500,000 for CH4. To my knowledge, no one has replicated this effect in laboratory conditions so the fundamental non-science (nonsense) remains unproven.

Furthermore, water vapor/H2O, is also a greenhouse gases(ghg) and it adds about 10-50,000 ppm on top of the dry atmopshere making it about a hundred times or more potent as a ghg, and the main driver of the atmospheric portion of climate change.



When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[19][failed verification]

notes: (A) Water vapor strongly varies locally[27] (B) The concentration in stratosphere. About 90% of the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere.
Compound	Formula	Concentration in atmosphere[26] (ppm)	Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds	H 2O	10–50,000(A)	36–72%
Carbon dioxide	CO 2	~400	9–26%
Methane	CH 4	~1.8	4–9%
Ozone	O 3	2–8(B)	3–7%

In addition to the main greenhouse gases listed above, other greenhouse gases include sulfur hexafluoride, ...

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For further consideration, about 99+% of life biomass on this planet, the Flora-plants, require CO2 and at an average of about 300ppm. These means that only about 100ppm, most of which MIGHT be caused by human activity, or the ratio of 1/10,000 of atmosphere content, is what AGW/ACC claims is harmful and would need to be reduced removed.

Main point is that the proof is not there to support major changes in human activities: economies and life styles, politics and social systems, etc.; to "fix" a natural process that should be adapted to rather than messed with, especially for such low numbers and factors which show there may not be a problem that can be "fixed".

Again, all those whom do believe in ACC/AGW are invited to do their part in personally reducing their own contributions of CO2 to zero, for sake of the greater good.

 

[Crick]

1) Isotopic analysis shows that every bit of CO2 in the atmosphere ABOVE the 280 ppm that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution is the result of fossil fuel combustion.
2) ALL of the Earth's radiated IR is absorbed by CO2, water vapor, methane and other trace GHGs in the atmosphere long before escaping to space. This is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
3) The Greenhouse Effect HAS been demonstrated in the lab. Ask Google or just search YouTube. That you should think otherwise tells me you've never looked or have chosen to lie.
4) The Earth's temperature has been rising at an unprecedented and accelerating rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That point has been determined by more than half a dozen national and academic science institutions with almost identical results.
5) The rise of sea level due to thermal expansion and ice melt primarily from Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating and is taking place at a rate that has not been seen since well before the rise of homo sapiens

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, but what about back before there were plants and animals? Didn't need no stinkin' climate scientist consensus and shit back then, huh! The Earth was just struttin' its stuff, hangin' tough!

 

[abu afak]

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.

[.....]
`

abu afak why were temperatures warmer in the past with less CO2?

Been there, done that. You lost then too.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated.

Have a Party instead of asking an anomalous, exception, Misleading and DISHONEST question.

Inescapable:
I could make 100 posts out of the graphs in this search burying you but not necessary.
Gameover

temperature co2 - Google Search

`

 

[ding]

Been there, done that. You lost then too.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated.

Have a Party instead of asking an anomalous, exception, Misleading and DISHONEST question.

Inescapable:
I could make 100 posts out of the graphs in this search burying you but not necessary.
Gameover

temperature co2 - Google Search

`

No you haven't been there done that. You've been there and run away from it. Like you are doing now.

 

[ding]

One can probably find exceptions but Temperature and CO2 are super-highly correlated.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years. After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken. It was warmer in the past with less CO2 than today.

 

[abu afak]

No you haven't been there done that. You've been there and run away from it. Like you are doing now.




View attachment 578094

Thanks for posting a graph that refutes you!
ALL SHOW Temp and CO2 are in LOCK STEP with only tiny anomalies.
You blithering idiot.

I think I'm going to post more of them.
Once a day for 3 months.

`

 

[ding]

Thanks for posting a graph that refutes you!
ALL SHOW Temp and CO2 are in LOCK STEP with only tiny anomalies.
You blithering idiot.

I think I'm going to post more of them.
Once a day for 3 months.

`

I already explained the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water with CO2 lagging temperature by ~800 years. After the industrial revolution the correlation was broken. It was warmer in the past with less CO2 than today.

The graph shows warmer temperatures with less CO2.

Do you even understand your argument?

 

[ding]

I think I'm going to post more of them.
Once a day for 3 months.

Please do as it affords me the opportunity to potentially reach more people.