How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.

"Big Oil" makes you sound like a mindless bot

 

[the other mike]

The 'coldest winter ever' starts at 2:55....

"Where the fuck is global warming when you need it ?"

 

[the other mike]

"Big Oil"

Big Fossil Fuels is more accurate....this way you include coal .

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

IMO?

I more useful graph, would be a pie-chart, showing the total amount of natural CO2, with the total broken down, with the percentage which was naturally released, and the percentage which produced by human activities, for say, a any specific year.

I believe either of you would have hard time finding such chart. It can be done, but, it is not easy. . . and? That should, by itself, tell you something.

I have, at various times, found these charts, conveying the percentage of naturally produced CO2 versus CO2 produced by human activity, but? Given how hard it is to find such pie-charts, and given what these pie-charts demonstrate? These should, for any critical thinker, be all you should need to finish this discussion.

If it isn't? The the monopolistic and powerful funding sources that corrupt the science of this planet and media have done on number on you, in most likelihood, and you are not using your critical faculties.

 

[ding]

I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.

If this were Oklahoma my argument would be arrested for sodomizing you.

 

[ding]

I'm not clicking on your super suspicious links, dopey. Googling your first source sent me straight to that predatory publishing list. So sorry, not going there 'cause undoubtedly just propaganda paid for by Billionaires for Big Oil or some shit. You're just a childish willing tool and a moron. Give it up.

You didn't need to click on the link. Everything was explained in the post.

 

[BackAgain]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?

What are you? Are you one o’ them Static Climate Deniers?!?

 

[BackAgain]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?​

We don’t.

Here are some points to consider. If it is humankind that is “causing” climate change, then we need to see how STATIC the climate was before humans became technological.

It turns out that climate was never static. We can and do know this because ice ages came and went a couple of times at least before human technology came into being. We couldn’t have cause those things. We had an alibi. We weren’t here yet.

Therefore we KNOW beyond any doubt that climate change is the norm and climate variability isn’t dependent on human activity.

Now, I will say this. If your contention is that human technology (specifically pumping more CO2 into our atmosphere with other greenhouse gasses) might have some IMPACT on the direction and rate of climate variability, I’m willing to believe it’s possible.

The data in support of that contention may or may not be crystal clear. So humanity should maybe proceed with caution. Ok. The caution doesn’t require the socialism proposed by the AGW alarmists, however.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What are you? Are you one o’ them Static Climate Deniers?!?

You caught me.

 

[BackAgain]

You caught me.

Come on man! Everyone knows that the global climate is and has always been perfectly static.

Stop the denials! Stop the MADNESS!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Come on man! Everyone knows that the global climate is and has always been perfectly static.

Stop the denials! Stop the MADNESS!

Come on man......even Cornpop knows that, and he's a bad dude.

 

[abu afak]

I more useful graph, would be a pie-chart, showing the total amount of natural CO2, with the total broken down, with the percentage which was naturally released, and the percentage which produced by human activities, for say, a any specific year.

I believe either of you would have hard time finding such chart. It can be done, but, it is not easy. . . and? That should, by itself, tell you something.

I have, at various times, found these charts, conveying the percentage of naturally produced CO2 versus CO2 produced by human activity, but? Given how hard it is to find such pie-charts, and given what these pie-charts demonstrate? These should, for any critical thinker, be all you should need to finish this discussion.

If it isn't? The the monopolistic and powerful funding sources that corrupt the science of this planet and media have done on number on you, in most likelihood, and you are not using your critical faculties.

A specific year does NOT move the needle and would produce nothing but anomalous and useless numbers.
ie, If CO2 went down from 403 to 402 or 400 PPM or merely ie, stayed at 403 because of the pandemic, that does NOT at all stop the warming trend still in place by the 50% less (but still) addition creating a thicker GHG blanket 40, 80, or 160 years that parallels the Temperature rise.

ie, One idiot denying/crusading poster here thought because 2020 emissions were down significantly in the year 2020 pandemic it should have cooled!
NO!
It would take a decade of at least 50%? less GHGs to move the needle and affect the thickness of the blanket already in place and working/warming more.

And since not a single person read the OP links let me give a least my second synopsis of the links in it:
Scientists (as well as emissions and the resulting PPM) have measured the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth and the amount leaving.
There is no more solar emissions hitting the earth in the last 50 years, but less and less is being reflected back out into space.
It is BEING blocked from reflecting back at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs like CH4, CO2, etc, etc.

THAT IS ONE BIG REASON WE KNOW.

You all need to learn and read educated/expert opinion in the OP links from Columbia, NASA, Yale, etc. instead of making up ****.

RWers are just a giant anti-establishment, anti-expert, and oft conspiracYst bunch.

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

we KNOW beyond any doubt that climate change is the norm and climate variability isn’t dependent on human activity.

-- given humans haven't existed yet or have not yet advanced to the point where they could burn enough fossil fuels to have an impact. That being so bleeding obvious -- why would anyone bother suggesting or insinuating otherwise? To distract and insult, thereby impeding change. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that things are working out just fine for them and fuck everyone else. Many here even come right and say it, again and again.

By contrast, the following tautological statement intellectually insults no one, yet will likely trigger multiple hardcore deniers:

We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability

We KNOW there is more variability? How do we know?

 

[Stryder50]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

Because the climate never changed before we started using fossil fuels?

Is this some sort of satire or joke ???

Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have only been on this planet about 200-300 thousand years at most.

Yet the various climates have been here for 4+ BILLION years ever since a hydrosphere and resulting biosphere were formed.

So what caused the many "climate changes" such as the Ice Ages, before humans appeared ??? !!!

 

[abu afak]

Is this some sort of satire or joke ???

Humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have only been on this planet about 200-300 thousand years at most.

Yet the various climates have been here for 4+ BILLION years ever since a hydrosphere and resulting biosphere were formed.

So what caused the many "climate changes" such as the Ice Ages, before humans appeared ??? !!!

So your logic is Humans can't have caused climate change because it happened before without them?
(people died before guns/WMD too)

Do you realize how illogical that is?
The whole point of the OP and it many links (Read them) was to show why/How this last warming WAS caused by humans.
And you have no answer to that OP (or my last post just two above/bolded) just a really ridiculous 'deduction.'

`

 

[BackAgain]

So your logic is Humans can't have caused climate change because it happened before without them?
(people died before guns/WMD too)

Do you realize how illogical that is?
The whole point of the OP and it many links (Read them) was to show why/how this last warming WAS caused by humans.
And you have no answer to the OP (or my last post just two above/bolded) just a really egregious false premise.

`

Don’t be obtuse. The point is that since we KNOW that climate isn’t static, that it IS naturally variable and that the climate of the entire planet HAS changed from ice age to warmer and back to ice age again and then back to warmer AGAIN BEFORE humans had technology, that it ain’t necessarily true that human activity is the cause for recent evidence of climate “change.”

Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming. There is scientific theory. Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.

 

[BackAgain]

-- given humans haven't existed yet or have not yet advanced to the point where they could burn enough fossil fuels to have an impact. That being so bleeding obvious -- why would anyone bother suggesting or insinuating otherwise? To distract and insult, thereby impeding change. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that things are working out just fine for them and fuck everyone else. Many here even come right and say it, again and again.

By contrast, the following tautological statement intellectually insults no one, yet will likely trigger multiple hardcore deniers:

We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere.

“We KNOW beyond any doubt that anthropomorphic global warming accompanied by increased climate variability has resulted when humans have burnt enough fossil fuel to significantly increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere.”

Wrong. You cannot use “anthropomorphic” as a premise when your desired conclusion is that same premise. Among other defects, you claim tautology. But it isn’t even a tautology.

 

[abu afak]

Don’t be obtuse. The point is that since we KNOW that climate isn’t static, that it IS naturally variable and that the climate of the entire planet HAS changed from ice age to warmer and back to ice age again and then back to warmer AGAIN BEFORE humans had technology, that it ain’t necessarily true that human activity is the cause for recent evidence of climate “change.”

Further, there is NO proof that humans have caused the recent warming. There is scientific theory. Science is governed by stricter rules than your language seems to believe.

You're the Obtuse one, Joining Stryder.
Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of it.

There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.

And indeed that IS the evidence.
We know (have measured) WE changed CO2/other GHG atmospheric blanket which is warming the planet.
Did you miss all the charts and lock step of Temp/CO2? (just read the last post/LOL).

Only complete science illiterates don't acknowledge that EVIDENCE.
And Science doesn't have 'proof,' but theories Affirmed/Confirmed over time that become facts.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
AGW is a Fact.

`

 

[BackAgain]

You're the Obtuse one, Joining Stryder.


There is no reason that exploding population of 7 Billion humans with the technology and resource usage we've incorporated just since the industrial revolution, and especially the last 50 years, could not have changed the planet.

And indeed that IS the evidence.
We know WE changed CO2/other GHG atmospheric blanket which is warming the planet.
Did you miss all the charts and lock step of Temp/CO2? (just read the last post/LOL)

Only complete science illiterates don't acknowledge that EVIDENCE.
And Science doesn't have 'proof,' but theories Affirmed/Confirmed over time that become facts.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
AGW is a Fact.

“Worse!!! you read my post and just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of it.”

I acknowledge that your “logic” is indeed blindingly vacuous.

But no: AGW is not a “fact.”

Further, “science” does begin with facts that are proved. Indeed, you just claimed that AGW is an alleged “fact.” It isn’t of course. But you are found to be contradicting yourself yet again.