How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

<iframe src="Winnie The Pooh GIF by Disney - Find & Share on GIPHY" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>

Don't fling the Pooh.

Outstanding

 

[emilynghiem]

A. I still say that the common objective and focus on PRESERVING natural environment, ecosystems and wildlife
is better for uniting people instead of dividing over conflicting views and politicizing/attacking others for that.

The SAME process it would take to get rid of pollution out of respect for nature
would also solve any issue with pollution causing "CO2 and blocking heat in the atmosphere and trapping more heat that is released into space"

B. Nobody is addressing why China is exempt from the restrictions that are disproportionately targeting and costing Western nations more,
even though China produces more of the pollution than all other countries combined.

So if this isn't a political conflict for power and economics, why wouldn't China be held to the same standards proportionally?

C. Although people are still contesting the "causality" argument, the data supposedly shows
that the fossil fuels CO2 has a different ratio of C13:C12 that is due to being plant based.
Plants also prefer C12 and have a lower C13:C12 ratio
so the basic arguments being cited are that the
LOWER C13:C12 ratio in the CO2 measurements
shows this CO2 increase is from Fossil Fuels that create that particular footprint/output.

So the graphs showing the increase in CO2 coming from Fossil Fuels is used to argue
this "CORRESPONDS" to an increase in temperature spikes (both hotter hots and colder colds).

But that "CORRELATION" doesn't necessarily prove "CAUSALITY"
so that's where the opposing scientists are arguing that this is being POLITICIZED,
there are OTHER motives for arguing and attacking people over this approach.

If environmental restoration, preservation and protection were the issue,
there wouldn't be avoidance of point B - holding China to even greater restrictions due to greater threats and pollution
and there would be more focus on A - conservation of natural environment (which would not only require the same reduction
in fossil fuel pollutions and emissions but all other factors including the hazards to wildlife and environment of the
material and toxic waste involved in wind and solar energy using batteries and producing nondegradable/nonrecyclable equipment
that causes more problems than it solves)
instead of political fights over the CO2 arguments.

 

[basquebromance]

we need something like, well, a PLAN...or a NEW DEAL

GREEN NEW DEAL!

 

[basquebromance]

The Earth's ozone layer will make a full recovery in 50 years. Thanks largely to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which put a global ban on Chloroflurocarbons (CFOs)

 

[abu afak]

A. I still say that the common objective and focus on PRESERVING natural environment, ecosystems and wildlife
is better for uniting people instead of dividing over conflicting views and politicizing/attacking others for that.

The SAME process it would take to get rid of pollution out of respect for nature
would also solve any issue with pollution causing "CO2 and blocking heat in the atmosphere and trapping more heat that is released into space"

B. Nobody is addressing why China is exempt from the restrictions that are disproportionately targeting and costing Western nations more,
even though China produces more of the pollution than all other countries combined.

So if this isn't a political conflict for power and economics, why wouldn't China be held to the same standards proportionally?

C. Although people are still contesting the "causality" argument, the data supposedly shows
that the fossil fuels CO2 has a different ratio of C13:C12 that is due to being plant based.
Plants also prefer C12 and have a lower C13:C12 ratio
so the basic arguments being cited are that the
LOWER C13:C12 ratio in the CO2 measurements
shows this CO2 increase is from Fossil Fuels that create that particular footprint/output.

So the graphs showing the increase in CO2 coming from Fossil Fuels is used to argue
this "CORRESPONDS" to an increase in temperature spikes (both hotter hots and colder colds).

But that "CORRELATION" doesn't necessarily prove "CAUSALITY"
so that's where the opposing scientists are arguing that this is being POLITICIZED,
there are OTHER motives for arguing and attacking people over this approach.

If environmental restoration, preservation and protection were the issue,
there wouldn't be avoidance of point B - holding China to even greater restrictions due to greater threats and pollution
and there would be more focus on A - conservation of natural environment (which would not only require the same reduction
in fossil fuel pollutions and emissions but all other factors including the hazards to wildlife and environment of the
material and toxic waste involved in wind and solar energy using batteries and producing nondegradable/nonrecyclable equipment
that causes more problems than it solves)
instead of political fights over the CO2 arguments.

THANK YOU For thoughtful post!
Stunning here in MAGAt land.
All points are good ones. Some alteration/comment/suggestion.

1. I agree it's mostly for naught if we can't get China/Chindia more committed.
China argues they are 1.3 Billion who are entitled to move the bottom half to the middle class/Western standards (like Cars) and not be stunted so early in energy usage rate development. India same.

The West - alas - accepts this argument even though it pretty much makes our effort much less effective (I feel near useless except for embarrassing them as the biggest solar panel manufacturer).
We need to push them much harder and make sure they have a much better energy mix than we are letting them get away with now.
That negotiation part of the 'Paris Agreement' that is too weak.


2. The C13/12 point just demonstrates what we already know. We/man is putting huge amounts of it and other Greenhouse gases into the atmo.
And we all know the definition of GHG!

3. My quick primer on the topic. Hopefully you read one of the links provided.
CAUSATION:

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious deniers know/use, usually Lag that solar forcing... but this time led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate compared to natural cycles.

Hope that helps, and thx your understanding and again for such a sober post.
.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
One can't ignore C14:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

www.climate.gov

Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all. {...snip...}
This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio

 

[Grumblenuts]

Troll repellent:

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

 

[jc456]

we need something like, well, a PLAN...or a NEW DEAL

GREEN NEW DEAL!

Will it be cheaper? How much money you got?

 

[jc456]

I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
One can't ignore C14:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

www.climate.gov

So, how hot is that CO2?

 

[Stann]

Will it be cheaper? How much money you got?

It will definitely be cheaper when gas starts running out and it cost $25 a gallon.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

My mode of operation is my mode of operation. It’s obvious to all, that throwing percentages around without the supporting data is not how statistics works. Pooh fling away

Might want to add in "Learn what you are talking about" to your "mode of operation". LOL.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So, how hot is that CO2?

What a stupid question! LOL.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'll add that it's more complex but also more definitive than simply plotting C12:C13 ratios.
One can't ignore C14:

How do we know the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Fossil fuels are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts so high so quickly.

www.climate.gov

Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts. But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels.

Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days. Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.

I wish we had better science education these days.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Need a tissue

Sorry, widdle one, I don't have one. Go ask mommy.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

<iframe src="Winnie The Pooh GIF by Disney - Find & Share on GIPHY" width="480" height="350" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>

Don't fling the Pooh.

That's all he's got.

 

[Paracetamol63]

The Earth's ozone layer will make a full recovery in 50 years. Thanks largely to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which put a global ban on Chloroflurocarbons (CFOs)

The Montreal Protocols are a great blueprint for international cooperation. It's also a great example of how the "merchants of doubt" were brought on as well. Some of the usual scientists who sell their services to cast doubt on science (like in the tobacco-cancer link, acid rain and now climate change). One of them decreed that alternatives to CFC's would be far worse, more polluting and more dangerous and less effective so we shouldn't ban the CFC's that were causing the problem.

Of course, as in tobacco-cancer, acid rain and AGW the "merchant of doubt" was wrong.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts. But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels.

Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days. Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.

I wish we had better science education these days.

There's a lot of talk about "isotopes" here. Whehter its the oxygen for telling temperature or this stuff about the CO2.

Can someone please explain what an isotope is and why they get so much info from them?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Problem with 14-C is that atmospheric nuke testing back in the 60's messed up the relative amounts. But prior to that apparently the CO2 in the atmosphere was depleted in 14-C exactly as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels.

Isotopes are a great fingerprint to tell us who is likely responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere these days. Sadly, it's not super "easy" science (isotope fractionation) so many of our local "skeptics" on here will have no clue about it or what it implies.

I wish we had better science education these days.

Thanks. Actually though, the amount of 14-C added from nuke testing is old news today and fully accounted for. It's not really a "Problem." Indeed, isotope fractionation has been extremely simple and precise since before our denier trolls here began wearing their diapers.

I also find "as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels" confusing. Vegetal may imply biodiesel or ethanol from corn but it really just means pertaining to plants. Firewood is vegetal. Fossil fuels are ultimately vegetal as well. So I'd work on a better way to phrase that bit.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Thanks. Actually though, the amount of 14-C added from nuke testing is old news today and fully accounted for. It's not really a "Problem." Indeed, isotope fractionation has been extremely simple and precise since before our denier trolls here began wearing their diapers.

I also find "as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels" confusing. Vegetal may imply biodiesel or ethanol from corn but it really just means pertaining to plants. Firewood is vegetal. Fossil fuels are ultimately vegetal as well. So I'd work on a better way to phrase that bit.

Actually in terms of the stable isotopes it won’t make much difference if it is coal or more recent vegetation sources since we are talking about fractionation by the original plant that increases the 12C isotope, correct?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually in terms of the stable isotopes it won’t make much difference if it is coal or more recent vegetation sources since we are talking about fractionation by the original plant that increases the 12C isotope, correct?

It's the amount of time spent underground that counts. If the plant has been at the surface instead of underground for millions of years it's going to have C-14 as opposed to zero and a different ratio (fraction) of C-12 to C-13.