How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

[Crick]

Several threads have been running on this board claiming over and over again that no evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. The purpose of this thread is to counter that falsehood.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

1) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

 

[harmonica]

it's a guess

 

[Crick]

The standard denier objection to these data is that the chronological resolution of the ice core data making up all but the right hand of this graphic could not show a rapid excursion such as human GHG emissions have created and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that they could have occurred with every glacial cycle shown. This, they claim, does not rule out the possibility that what we are seeing falls within natural variation. My counters to that would be that:

1) There is no known natural cause for the CO2 rise we have seen.
2) Isotopic analysis identifies every bit of CO2 above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to be sourced from fossil fuel combustion
3) A simple bookkeeping approach estimating the amount of fossil fuel burned since 1880 and the amount of CO2 it would produce closely matches observtions.
4) There is no known mechanism by which the current rise could cease and return to the preindustrial level in less than another 300 years - well outside the chronological resolution of both these CO2 data and the temperature data with which these data are correlated.
5) CO2 can both lead and lag temperature changes because two different and independent mechanisms are involved: the solubility of gas in water (decreases with increasing temperature) and the greenhouse effect.

 

[Crick]

Global warming from 1880 to 2017

 

[Crick]

ANTARCTIC ICE MASS VARIATION SINCE 2002

127 Gigatonnes/Yr

GREENLAND ICE MASS VARIATION SINCE 2002

286 Gigatonnes/Yr

 

[Billy_Bob]

Karl et al...

God I love when liberals post up bull shit..

Every one of their POTENTIAL predictions are base on MODELS that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. Everything is "we believe"...

And then the all powerful Appeal to Authority..... the IPCC authorities who have been shown corrupt and deceptive..

Tell Me, The IPCC stated that we were all going to burn up by 2012 and that the point of no return was then. They used the Climate sensitivity of 6 deg C per doubling of CO2 in 1990 when this prediction was made. 2012 came an went without runaway temperatures and their predictions failed out side of 4 standard deviations. SO far out that the models used are considered useless for anything.

The last three years we have massive cooling of the earths atmosphere. The IPCC lowered their climate sensitivity to 0.0 - 1.1 deg C per doubling of CO2 making the potential rise from increasing CO2 that of its LOG value. Yet when it is computed we have had just 1/2 of the LOG warming, indicating that Water Vapor is not acting in a positive manner but a negative one, negating over half of the LOG warming expected.

Your Karl Et Al adjustments, designed to give false warming, are exposed as the fraud they are. The Empirical evidence show this whole meme a lie and a deception.

 

[westwall]

Several threads have been running on this board claiming over and over again that no evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. The purpose of this thread is to counter that falsehood.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

1) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

Every one of their claims of evidence is correlational. As any good scientist knows, "correlation does not equal causation".

 

[westwall]

Karl et al...

God I love when liberals post up bull shit..

Every one of their POTENTIAL predictions are base on MODELS that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. Everything is "we believe"...

And then the all powerful Appeal to Authority..... the IPCC authorities who have been shown corrupt and deceptive..

And they are all correlational any way. It is all crap from soup to nuts. Mainly nuts in crikeys case.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The standard denier objection to these data is that the chronological resolution of the ice core data making up all but the right hand of this graphic could not show a rapid excursion such as human GHG emissions have created and thus we cannot rule out the possibility that they could have occurred with every glacial cycle shown. This, they claim, does not rule out the possibility that what we are seeing falls within natural variation. My counters to that would be that:

1) There is no known natural cause for the CO2 rise we have seen.
2) Isotopic analysis identifies every bit of CO2 above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to be sourced from fossil fuel combustion
3) A simple bookkeeping approach estimating the amount of fossil fuel burned since 1880 and the amount of CO2 it would produce closely matches observtions.
4) There is no known mechanism by which the current rise could cease and return to the preindustrial level in less than another 300 years - well outside the chronological resolution of both these CO2 data and the temperature data with which these data are correlated.
5) CO2 can both lead and lag temperature changes because two different and independent mechanisms are involved: the solubility of gas in water (decreases with increasing temperature) and the greenhouse effect.

Correlation does not equal causation...

And your Michale Mann parlor trick of placing a 10 year plot on the end of 250 year plot (where 250 years are averaged to create on data point vs 10 years to create one data point) is very deceptive.

Here is a graph that doesn't do what you have done..

Where is your warming Crick?

 

[Oddball]

 

[abu afak]

Every one of their claims of evidence is correlational. As any good scientist knows, "correlation does not equal causation".

So is/Was Cigarette Smoking and Cancer.
And that was resolved in less time with merely "correlational" Evidence.

Of Course, if you know the Definition of Greenhouse Gases, that itself is strong Evidence too.
`

 

[Oddball]

Several threads have been running on this board claiming over and over again that no evidence supports anthropogenic global warming. The purpose of this thread is to counter that falsehood.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1"

1) IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do we know that atmospheric CO2 is heating the ocean?

We don't. We just made that up because we needed a brand new data set to make the fictional global warming narrative look plausible

 

[Crick]

Atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet. The ocean simply gets most of that energy due to its specific heat capacity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How do we know that atmospheric CO2 is heating the ocean?

We don't. We just made that up because we needed a brand new data set to make the fictional global warming narrative look plausible

I want to know how that one works... The mass/energy conversion factor makes it very unlikely.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Atmospheric CO2 is warming the planet. The ocean simply gets most of that energy due to its specific heat capacity.

Show your mechanism! Show the process! I call bull shit!

 

[Crick]

Earth's glaciers are melting at a rate of 400 billion tons per year. That is just slightly less than the sum of Greenland and Antarctic melting and, like them, all that meltwater raises sea level.

 

[Crick]

Sea level rise

Probably the most visible affect of global warming. Rising sea level is leading to increased coastal flooding and enhanced storm surge. Before the century is out, over a hundred million people worldwide will have to relocate away from the coasts. Increased damage from storm surge and storms strengthened by warmer and warmer sea surface temperatures will cost humanity billions and billions of dollars annually.

 

[skye]

insignificant humans .....can not and are not able to warm the planet.

over the ages...in Antiquity....miserable human beings never were able to warm up the planet or to cold it...

the sun can warm it

or a meteor crashing on earth can cause problems and produce an ice age etc....

but idiotic human beings can not do shit.

my two cents,

 

[Crick]

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem

Ocean Acidification
"Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION."

Mollusks, arthropods and corals all build exoskeletal structures by extracting calcium carbonate from sea water. As our oceans absorb billions of tons of CO2 from the air, the solubility of CaCO3 increases making it more and more difficult for these many life forms to perform this basic and critical function. Additionally, unlike life ashore, marine life exists intimately surrounded by a solvent fluid. Almost every single biological function they undertake uses the surrounding water as a medium. Changes in its chemistry affect functions of every description. But most critically, it can affect reproduction and has already been found to do so in a multitude of marine organisms.

Deniers will point out the several times in Earth's geological history in which atmospheric CO2 became much higher than current levels without significant harm to marine life. The answer, as with almost all AGW effects, is in the timing. Past CO2 excursions took place over tens of thousands of years. Increases in ocean acidity were buffered by the dissolution of calcium carbonate (limestone) ashore that was then washed into the seas. The rate of acidification was slow enough that this process was able to compensate for the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and many species were able to make compensatory biological adaptations. The current rate of increase is thousands of times faster than anything in the Earth's geological record. There will not be time for compensation or adaptation.