How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[abu afak]

The global warming effects of CO2 has have been known since the mid to late 1800s. Now the effects of all that anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere is warming the planet as predicted by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. What is so hard to understand about that.

I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
They can't/won't do it.
Not one.
Cognitive dissonance classic.

`

 

[jc456]

I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
They can't/won't do it.
Not one.
Cognitive dissonance classic.

`

No such thing in my world

 

[abu afak]

V.

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

 

[jc456]

V.

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

No such thing, they can’t tell you about what doesn’t exist. Gas exists, what suits your fancy

 

[ding]

II`

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (ding, No-balls, Cru-Frank, Rainy) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

The presence of an atmosphere, dummy.

 

[abu afak]

Wiki
[....]

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] No longer does ANY national or international Scientific body reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
They have concluded that almost All climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
[......]
[......]

`

 

[abu afak]

How do we Know Humans are Causing Climate Change?

Even the best paid deniers ran completely out of new material decades ago. We should feel sad for them. They are so pitiful and pathetic.

That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
The skeptics are losing/have lost.

`

 

[jc456]

That and the FACT the last 7 years were the warmest 7 years on record. (or 7 of 8)
Right through Skookerasbil (with jc456 assists) ridiculous thread/BLOG, the delusional "the skeptics are winning" BLOG.
No shame or no brains. They're, in fact, getting crushed.
The skeptics are losing/have lost.

`

warmer where? explain how you get an entire planet's temperature? you fking have no idea how warm or cold the planet has been. No one does. Stop looking the fool fool.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thankfully, climate scientists have largely remained immune to these divisive attempts to politically corrupt their work product. Not that being a dedicated nerd is some great accomplishment, but they deserve lots of credit for marching steadily on through all the shitstorms.

 

[abu afak]

It in my signature: "The climate system is a coupled non linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" --- IPCC

QUOTE MINING, just like the Evolution deniers!

"....In his response to us, Monckton provides an argument that is based on quote-mining the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report and taking a single sentence out of context - the first sentence in the quote below. The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences (emphasis added):

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential."

""In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.
Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.".."

Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)

`

 

[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.
`

I find your attempted response quite amusing and vacant.

Consider getting an adult to help you try to communicate whateverthefuck it is you think you’re “saying.”

 

[Rogue AI]

Global climate is a complex system that is influenced by numerous forces, both terrestrial and non-terrestrial. Attempting to distill it down to something as simple as CO2 is beyond idiotic.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE MINING, just like the Evolution deniers!

"....In his response to us, Monckton provides an argument that is based on quote-mining the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report and taking a single sentence out of context - the first sentence in the quote below. The context of the quote is provided in the following sentences (emphasis added):



""In short, the IPCC is saying that we cannot precisely predict the future climate state; however, we can produce a probability distribution of possible future climate states, which is precisely what the IPCC report proceeds to do.
Monckton has misrepresented the IPCC report by selecting a single sentence that serves a convenient purpose out of context, and choosing to ignore the text immediately following, not to mention essentially entire sections of the IPCC report where they do indeed detail the probabilities of future climate states from model ensembles.".."

Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)

`

A probability that they haven’t got right once since they were formed

 

[ReinyDays]

I keep asking the deniers to merely define 'Greenhouse Gas.'
They can't/won't do it.
Not one.
Cognitive dissonance classic.

`

Water vapor covers about 2/3's the greenhouse effect ... carbon dioxide about 1/4 ... and the rest is at wavelengths that both are reactive at ... the satellites in orbit aren't sensitive enough to pick up any contribution from methane or other species ...

My understanding is the definition works the other way ... we state which gases are NOT contributing to the greenhouse effect and define these as non-greenhouse gases (oxygen, nitrogen and argon) ... and the rest are greenhouse gases by default ...

What's interesting is that water vapor is the primary GHG as it interacts with the radiative transfer of energy through the atmosphere ... it's also the primary species acting in the convective transfer of energy ... AND carries four times the specific heat capacity as any other species in our atmosphere with latent heats at the insane level ...

Just more exotic properties of a rather mundane substance ...

 

[abu afak]

Here is your (snicker) "Climate change".

Dale Smith is a CHEMTRAILS ConspiracYst who tries to post his conspiracy pictures in Climate threads.
Reported again.

This place is a loony bin.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seems like a lot of adults immediately get confused when they see the word "consensus".

Let's be clear: There is not just "consensus of belief" among the scientific community regarding ACC. There is complete consensus of the evidence.

Mountains and mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, all pointing in the same direction.

 

[Crick]

Global climate is a complex system that is influenced by numerous forces, both terrestrial and non-terrestrial. Attempting to distill it down to something as simple as CO2 is beyond idiotic.

No, it's not.

 

[Rogue AI]

No, it's not.

View attachment 592759

Yeah it is. Any number of events, none of which humans participate in, can alter the climate at a moment's notice. Making any alleged human activity moot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

abu afak

It's amazing how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.

 

[abu afak]

abu afak

It's amazing how spot on scientists were about this over 40 years ago.

Yes we see alot of silly Anecdotes about wrong predictions that are not Mainstream science and made before the tools w have now. (like weather satellite data)
`