How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[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,,, 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]

“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.

Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.

 

[abu afak]

Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.

My post was quite coherent and you had no answer to it.
Zip.
Yours was inexcusably obtuse as it just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of Stryder that was already debunked.
And you have come up with no Rational reply TO it since, just your 'pumpkin' put down attempt/loss admission.
`

 

[BackAgain]

My post was quite coherent and you had no answer to it.
Zip.
Yours was inexcusably obtuse as it just repeated the blindingly vacuous 'logic' of Stryder that was already debunked.
And you have come up with no Rational reply TO it since, just your 'pumpkin' put down attempt/loss admission.
`

You were coherent when you inadvertently admitted that your logic was “vacuous.

You lost credibility completely after that.

And I find it funny how immediately after I said you were being “obtuse” you were able to so quickly come back to claim that I was “obtuse.”

 

[abu afak]

......
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.

And you are spectacularly ignorant about science.
ie,
From "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief

​

1. Evolution is 'only a theory.' It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific Theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”​

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”..."​

​

Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' it deals in theories affirmed over time. Only math really has 'proof' in the absolute sense.
Monster cognitive/edu mismatch here.
`
`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don’t cry pumpkin. I was quoting your own imbecilic post.

No, that was my post. The one you clearly still don't get was indeed a deliberate tautology.. even after I explicitly described it as such.

 

[BackAgain]

And you are spectacularly ignorant about science.
ie,
From "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"
Scientific American - 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief

​

1. Evolution is 'only a theory.' It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific Theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”​

No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”..."​

​

Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' it deals in theories affirmed over time. Only math really has 'proof' in the absolute sense.
Monster cognitive/edu mismatch here.
`
`

Way to duck it. I never said a single word about the theory of evolution. Nice straw man.

What I did deny was your incorrect assertion. Science does use FACTS as premises. I’ve never been confused about a theory vs the proper limits of scientific theory.

Meanwhile, AGW Is simply NOT (as you incorrectly stated) a “fact.”

 

[BackAgain]

No, that was my post. The one you clearly still don't get was indeed a deliberate tautology.. even after I explicitly described it as such.

No. It wasn’t. You need to learn the meaning of terms.

 

[westwall]

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.'

`

What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it. The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM. That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.

Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.

Not computer models, not opinions, but ACTUAL MEASURABLE DETAILS, that show mankinds impact.

To date, not one climatologist has EVER done so.

 

[ding]

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.

`

AGAIN...

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Old Rocks]

What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it. The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM. That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.

Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.

Not computer models, not opinions, but ACTUAL MEASURABLE DETAILS, that show mankinds impact.

To date, not one climatologist has EVER done so.

So squawks our fake Phd. Of course the fact that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger does not deter him from making such a fool of himself. Chemists have proven that GHGs raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Atmospheric Physicists have written many articles concerning how the longwave IR is absorbed by the GHGs and how that warms the atmosphere. And Geologists and Glaciologists have demonstrated how the temperature of the earth has varied with the effects of GHGs. But we are to trust an anonymous poster on a far rightwingnut poster board that he knows more than all these real scientists. LOL

 

[abu afak]

What is illogical is your opinion that mankind is causing it, but you have no empirical data to support it. The hallmark of science is UNIFORMITARIANISM. That means that the processes that are in operation today, are the same that were in operation in the past, and are the same that will continue to operate into the future.

Thus, if you wish to PROVE that mankind is altering climate, YOU must be able to provide MEASURABLE evidence that mankind is doing so.

Not computer models, not opinions, but ACTUAL MEASURABLE DETAILS, that show mankinds impact.

To date, not one climatologist has EVER done so.

MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.

​

Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case:​

""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.​

​

​

That's both Empirical and explained... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.
You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.
Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.

`
`.

 

[ding]

MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for5 YEARS without having made single post ofr thousands to demonstrate it.
You are deluded.

​

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.​

​

​

That's both Empirical and explained.
You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.
Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.

`
`.

If more GHG leads to increased temperatures then why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less CO2?

 

[ding]

AGW is a Fact.

Science is never settled.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​

 

[westwall]

MY post from the LAST PAGE you lying crackpot.
You know NO science, don't read English, and are just RW BLIND.
As well as Lying about being a Liberal for YEARS without having made single post of thousands to demonstrate it.

​

Again Me from last page with Empirical and more case:​

""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.​

​

​

That's both Empirical and explained... and apparently way over your lab-mopping job.
You couldn't make a post with understanding like that in 50 years.. and haven't.
Not to mention the OP and 50 more pages.

You post NOTHING NOWHERE except short RW hackery and feedback.

`
`.

Which means what? CO2 LAGS temperature. We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which means what? CO2 LAGS temperature. We have 800,000 years of ice core data that PROVE this.

Even a Geologist with only a BS knows that answer to that. As do you, it has been answered for you many times. However, you continue to post the drivel you post. You are a troll, no credibility in anything at all that you post.

 

[ding]

It's hard to believe that in this day and age that anyone with any knowledge whatsoever about science would believe that science should not always welcome challenges.

I think those people are more motivated by politics than they are science.

 

[ding]

Even a Geologist with only a BS knows that answer to that. As do you, it has been answered for you many times. However, you continue to post the drivel you post. You are a troll, no credibility in anything at all that you post.

The correlation between CO2 and temperature was broken after the industrial revolution.

 

[ding]

It's pretty obvious.

 

[ding]

Ding is trolling the same debunked chart/claim every hour in several different threads.
Trolling

IAC, he's Bumping up my threads and no one will eventually see all his trolling in the middle of them when they're over.

`

It's an awesome chart. It proves that more greenhouse gas led to cooler temperatures.

See?