How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

And those changes took place over a span of millions of years. When things changed rapidly, as with the Chicxulub Impact and the eruption of the Deccan Trapps, extinctions took place.

Got any actual evidence to support that? What proxy reconstruction are you using that provides that sort of resolution during that time period on earth? The answer is none...just more unsupportable claims pulled out of your ass.

And are you now trying to compare the climate change we have seen to a major volcanic eruption or a impact event? really? You want to compare a degree over 100 years to an event that altered the climate in a matter of days? Are you that desperate? Are you that stupid? Are you that far behind the curve?

This goes straight to the fact that there is no observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...We have no evidence at all that suggests that the rate and magnitude of change that we have seen is in any way different from natural variability over the ages....none at all. You guys go straight to that claim that in the past changes took thousands of years, but you have no evidence of that....the best temperature reconstructions that we have, ice cores, indicate magnitudes and rates of change that are far greater than anything we have seen just during the present interglacial...and there is no real reason to suspect that even greater magnitudes and rates of change happened, completely naturally further back than the small window we have to look through.

You are just making assumptions and claiming them to be true...that isn't evidence..that is just what you wish..

 

[Crick]

Gosh, if only you were actually familiar with the literature you might know this stuff. And if only you were trying to sort out the truth about this topic instead of stroking your own inflated ego by infuriating people... the way a

FUCKING TROLL

would do.

 

[SSDD]

Gosh, if only you were actually familiar with the literature you might know this stuff. And if only you were trying to sort out the truth about this topic instead of stroking your own inflated ego by infuriating people... the way a

FUCKING TROLL

would do.

So that would be a no...you have nothing to support the claims that you just pull out of your ass...

 

[Crick]

I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based. It is YOU that have nothing. It is you that lie. It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted. That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a

TROLL

You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap. Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?

 

[SSDD]

I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based. It is YOU that have nothing. It is you that lie. It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted. That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a

TROLL

You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap. Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?

And yet, when asked to bring a SINGLE piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, all you can do is splutter a bit, hurl some shit and call some names...there is no observed, measured data there, or anywhere which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

If there is some such data there skidmark...then bring it...It isn't for me to prove that it isn't there...I made the claim so prove me wrong...shove a single piece of observed measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability in my face...do it here in front of everyone...I dare you....

Didn't think you would...hard to produce what doesn't exist...

 

[oldsoul]

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. ....

Then you're a ******* Idiot, and this is no real response.

Several are great sources by anyone's measure, but you don't want facts changing your politics
What a jerk you are.

`

So, I'm an idiot because I choose to question based on an argument that you do not wish to discuss. "nuff said.

 

[oldsoul]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

You seem to be missing the point of my post. I reiterate:

Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?

So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms

Care to discuss?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

[.....]
`

Tell us what percentage of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade?

 

[jc456]

I have what I have always had: "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch and the thousands of studies supporting AGW on which the five assessment reports are based. It is YOU that have nothing. It is you that lie. It is you that ignore it when you are routinely refuted. That is solely and entirely because, without the slightest demurral, you are a

TROLL

You've repeatedly claimed that everything in "The Physical Science Basis" is crap. Why don't YOU pull some up and show us why you believe that?

still nothing. what a loser. dude following instructions is not your forte.

 

[jc456]

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.

[.....]
`

Tell us what percentage of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade?

it is the most evilist CO2 up there.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

[.....]
`

Tell us what percentage of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade?

it is the most evilist CO2 up there.

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

 

[jc456]

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.

[.....]
`

Tell us what percentage of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade?

it is the most evilist CO2 up there.

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

and evil. it causes it to snow more, rain more experience violent tornadoes that we never had before. fewer hurricanes.

 

[Crick]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

How many times did you exhale CO2 while you read this?
I don't think that I am off by a factor of ten.

 

[Billy_Bob]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

How many times did you exhale CO2 while you read this?
I don't think that I am off by a factor of ten.

Mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 is but 0.00034%. Its actually far less than you posted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

Wow

WOW

WOW!!

With those increases the temperature increases must be off the charts in the lab work!!

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

How many times did you exhale CO2 while you read this?
I don't think that I am off by a factor of ten.

Mans contribution to atmospheric CO2 is but 0.00034%. Its actually far less than you posted.

the point was made

 

[flacaltenn]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

What exactly is a "widely accepted theory"???? There are multiple theories on the table here...

For instance, this juvenile notion that "world ENDS in 12 years" is loosely based on the 2 deg Trigger theory.. The theory that states when (AND IF) the temperature anomaly exceeds 2 deg, that we can do NOTHING but kiss our asses goodbye...

You claiming that theory is "widely accepted"??

Are you also claiming that the science as its known today is SO GOOD, that there's NO DOUBT our little 1degC temperature blip that we've observed HAS NEVER HAPPENED in the past 10,000 years???

You claiming that theory is "settled science" and widely accepted??

How about all those failed models from the FIRST TWO IPCC conferences?? The ones that started the panic... Are you claiming that the models have improved so much that they are accurate to 80 years out now??

You have a very juvenile understanding of what all that IPCC information means. HALF OR MORE of it was already proven inaccurate just by waiting 10 or 20 years.. But more importantly, you cannot even TELL US what the temperature anomaly is GONNA BE in 2100 to any degree of accuracy.. Can you?? And what modeling qualifiers were used to predict that value and the other 3 questions that must be answered about ANY PROJECTIONS that are made.. Like the RANGE of estimation error...

You're just useless.

 

[Crick]

By any measure, AGW is a widely accepted theory. The original disagreement here was the contention that it lacks the status of theory and is only a conjectured hypothesis. This contention is demonstrably false.

The 12 year comment of Representative Ocasio-Cortez is dramatic hyperbole. She's not a scientist so the litany of attacks on her comments by deniers is just another fallacious straw dog argument to which there is zero need to respond.

If you want a real discussion about real issues, I suggest you stick to the conclusions of the IPCC.

 

[Flash]

If AGW was real the scammers wouldn't have to falsify data like they do.