How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

[Crick]

It is well known that a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...anyone who believes it can believes in perpetual motion and is a certifiable nut ball.

So there's no point in clothing or blankets or walls and roofs or black paint and fins on heat sinks.
Got it

 

[Crick]

The problem with a debate between folks who accept the validity of mainstream science (like Wuwei, Toddsterpatriot, IanC, Mamooth, me and others) with folks who do not, like SSDD and Billy Bob is that we are working from a different set of presuppositions. Science accepts the greenhouse theory as valid. SSDD and Billy Bob do not. The list below presupposes item #5, that the greenhouse effect is real, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans are responsible for raising its level in the atmosphere. Without that admission, SSDD and Billy Bob are free to reject all of this.

For anyone else, who finds it unlikely that thousands and thousands of real scientists doing real research for over one hundred years could have gotten something as basic as the greenhouse effect wrong (and the many other things SSDD has gotten wrong to make up for no greenhouse effect), but are wondering how we know that humans are responsible and that this warming is not being caused by some unknown natural cycle or cause, please read on. There is a wealth of material on the web from real scientists explaining global warming. Of course, being the internet, there is a wealth of complete nonsense. Be careful who you listen to.

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

So what's the evidence?
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

 

[SSDD]

A post without a single truthful statement. If anyone is tempted to believe Same Shit Different Day, please review "The Physical Science Basis at www.ipcc.ch

Step on up to the plate skidmark...provide a single piece of OBSERVED, MEASURED evidence to satisfy either of the first two statements or a published paper to satisfy the third...I'll wait...and wait...and wait...and wait...and wait because no such evidence, or paper will ever be forthcoming. You would think that you would have realized that arguing against the statements is a losing proposition for you by now...but then, you aren't very bright...are you ?

 

[SSDD]

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.

How did all the poor creatures survive the 1000+ atmospheric CO2 prior to the last ice age? The very species that are living in the oceans today?

Read the paragraph immediately above your question.

So your alarmist article shouts ocean acidification in the headlines but then switches to pollution which has nothing to do with climate change...pure alarmist clap trap...as usual..and you don't have the first bit of evidence that the present rate of acidification is any different from any other period...fake facts pulled straight out of your ass...good enough to fool you though...right?

 

[SSDD]

It is well known that a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...anyone who believes it can believes in perpetual motion and is a certifiable nut ball.

So there's no point in clothing or blankets or walls and roofs or black paint and fins on heat sinks.
Got it

You see any coats, or pants in the sky?

and how much warmth do you think that black paint would provide on the dark side of the moon? You think black paint causes warmth with no external heat source?

 

[SSDD]

The problem with a debate between folks who accept the validity of mainstream science (like Wuwei, Toddsterpatriot, IanC, Mamooth, me and others

I literally laughed out loud. Check with mainstream science and see if they can give you:

1 A single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. A single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. A single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

We both know that "mainstream" science can provide you with NOTHING that challenges any of those 3 statements...and yet, you believe the science is settled...you are ridiculous.

 

[Crick]

He literally laughed out loud. I bet he didn't. I bet he went scurrying about for a different way to present his trolls so that observers would think he had answered the question.

SSDD is a troll. He is the absolute paragon of a troll. His work here has no other point than to make others work to make the point they have already made.

The greenhouse effect is quite real. It is what keeps this planet warm enough to support life. SSDD's contention that the compression of the atmosphere by gravity is what powers the warming of the planet is absolute nonsense. How many of you have ever noticed that lower end of a bicycle pump gets warm when you use it? You probably never noticed it, but the bicycle tire itself gets warmer. Less, because its spread out, but for the same reason the bottom of the pump gets hot. Now, SSDD claims that the bicycle tire will remain warm for all eternity. How many of you find that an acceptable hypothesis? Anyone?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD is a troll. He is the absolute paragon of a troll. His work here has no other point than to make others work to make the point they have already made.

Poor skid mark...got your panties all in a twist...I keep asking for some simple observed measured evidence and you keep not delivering. Must be frustrating to hold a position so dearly and not be able to offer up jack in defense of it.

The greenhouse effect is quite real. It is what keeps this planet warm enough to support life.

So you keep saying..l.and yet, you can't seem to find a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...nor can you state which physical law suggests that a body can be warmed by its own radiation...why is that?

 

[skookerasbil]

The problem with a debate between folks who accept the validity of mainstream science (like Wuwei, Toddsterpatriot, IanC, Mamooth, me and others

I literally laughed out loud. Check with mainstream science and see if they can give you:

1 A single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. A single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. A single published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

We both know that "mainstream" science can provide you with NOTHING that challenges any of those 3 statements...and yet, you believe the science is settled...you are ridiculous.

Hey man.....Crick thinks the politics are an afterthought. Thinks it's just about the science. He just doesn't get it. Some just never will despite getting brow beaten time after time after time.

They despise us for one reason....we are winning and it's not even competitive.

I sure as hell love the MOAB'S you and Billy drop on these clowns. It just add's to my level of laugh.

 

[skookerasbil]

He literally laughed out loud. I bet he didn't. I bet he went scurrying about for a different way to present his trolls so that observers would think he had answered the question.

SSDD is a troll. He is the absolute paragon of a troll. His work here has no other point than to make others work to make the point they have already made.

The greenhouse effect is quite real. It is what keeps this planet warm enough to support life. SSDD's contention that the compression of the atmosphere by gravity is what powers the warming of the planet is absolute nonsense. How many of you have ever noticed that lower end of a bicycle pump gets warm when you use it? You probably never noticed it, but the bicycle tire itself gets warmer. Less, because its spread out, but for the same reason the bottom of the pump gets hot. Now, SSDD claims that the bicycle tire will remain warm for all eternity. How many of you find that an acceptable hypothesis? Anyone?

Laughable

Problem with your rant is, why is it that every government in the world recognizes SSDD's views and not yours as it pertains to energy policy? Why is that? Nobody is recognizing AGW beyond in a token manner. Token s0n.

You think most of the world is hysterical about climate change. Where do you come up with this stuff?

You smartass social oddball types never do properly evaluate the landscape. If the people who matter in first world societies embraced the theories you embrace, we'd have had significant climate change action many years ago. Instead, it is clear the embrace the theories espoused by SSDD, Billy et. al.

Sorry......

 

[Billy_Bob]

Karl et al...

Does he make you speechless?

God I love when liberals post up bull shit..

Not enough, however, to tell us what you think to be bullshit and why.

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

You don't make predictions without making use of a model. Period.

You have never justified your broad brush condemnation of GCM models.

Your final comment re "We believe" simply tells us that you don't understand the basics of the scientific method.

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

The IPCC has not been shown corrupt or deceptive. And as I have pointed out on multiple occasions, an appeal to an authority that is a demonstrable expert on the topics under discussion IS VALID. That is most certainly the case here.

Tell Me, The IPCC stated that we were all going to burn up by 2012

They said no such thing.

and that the point of no return was then.

There is a significant chance that it was.

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.

That is incorrect. I suspect you are judging GCMs by the specious graphic created by Dr Roy Spencer a few years back. That work is false. Your 6C climate sensitivity is also false. "The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C" --
Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia

The last three years we have massive cooling of the earths atmosphere.

That statement is false

From Listen to the Earth smash another global temperature record

The IPCC lowered their climate sensitivity to 0.0 - 1.1 deg C per doubling of CO2

This statement is false.

FAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
SAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
TAR: 1.5 - 4.5C
AR4: 2 - 4.5C
AR5: 1.25 - 2.45

Your Karl Et Al [sic] 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.

You have presented absolutely nothing here that would show Karl et al to be a fraud. Everything you have stated here was demonstrably false.

You keep citing the same failed crap, over and over again... Not going to bother with you.. You produce one failed lie thread after another citing failed modeling. misdirection and lies.

Bravo Crick... Your a parrot for your left wing shills..

 

[Billy_Bob]

A post without a single truthful statement. If anyone is tempted to believe Same Shit Different Day, please review "The Physical Science Basis at www.ipcc.ch

And there it is..... The appeal to the same authorities who lied to create the lie in the first place.

Crick likes running in circles... Hoping that no one will notice everything he spouts is base on failed modeling and lies.

 

[Crick]

Billy Boy, Meteorology booted you out, didn't they.

Yo, anyone see SSDD defending himself here? Anyone see BillyBoy explaining SSDD's physics? Anyone see JC456 exhibiting more than single grey cells?

Diddn't think so.

 

[mamooth]

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

This is progress, in that Westwall has now abandoned his faked "All the data is from models!" claim.

Of course, he'll jump right back to that previous fabricated claim as soon as it's convenient for him.

Science is not "If we don't know everything with 100% certainly, we know nothing" denier stupidity. By that standard, since we don't understand every single thing about gravity, we know nothing about it, and thus we can't launch rockets.

Science is about choosing the best and simplest theory that explains all of the observed evidence. That's AGW theory.

 

[westwall]

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

This is progress, in that Westwall has now abandoned his faked "All the data is from models!" claim.

Of course, he'll jump right back to that previous fabricated claim as soon as it's convenient for him.

Science is not "If we don't know everything with 100% certainly, we know nothing" denier stupidity. By that standard, since we don't understand every single thing about gravity, we know nothing about it, and thus we can't launch rockets.

Science is about choosing the best and simplest theory that explains all of the observed evidence. That's AGW theory.

No it isn't you moron. Science is about OBSERVING the natural world and coming up with theories that explain the inner workings of what is being seen.

Your scientific illiteracy is showing again, little kitty.

 

[mamooth]

No it isn't you moron. Science is about OBSERVING the natural world and coming up with theories that explain the inner workings of what is being seen.

So, like AGW theory.

And totally unlike what you do.

Tell us, what theory have you come up with? Your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is demonstrably wrong, as it is contradicted by the directly measured stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decreased outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands.

Our theory explains the observed data. Yours doesn't. Thus, ours is the accepted theory. You want to change that, then come up with a theory that doesn't suck.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Your chart is bullshit since all the temperatures prior to the last 150 years are an average of hundreds of years.

 

[bripat9643]

I love that video. I use to play it for my stepson and we laughed until tears were streaming.

 

[westwall]

No it isn't you moron. Science is about OBSERVING the natural world and coming up with theories that explain the inner workings of what is being seen.

So, like AGW theory.

And totally unlike what you do.

Tell us, what theory have you come up with? Your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is demonstrably wrong, as it is contradicted by the directly measured stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decreased outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands.

Our theory explains the observed data. Yours doesn't. Thus, ours is the accepted theory. You want to change that, then come up with a theory that doesn't suck.

Wrong again little kitty. AGW theory is now about not predicting anything except the most vague, non measurable happenings. And falsifying the data. They are real good at that.

 

[deanrd]

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.

Trump told his minions not to believe what they see or hear.

Just believe him.

And so far..............they do.