How Do We Know Humans are Warming the Planet?

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Poor Crick.. Getting your ass kicked and all you can do is attack the poster... SSDD has a much better grasp of the whole conceptual mess than all of you. To bad you all cant get past your belief in failed modeling..

 

[Crick]

1) You believe photons are matter and have mass
2) You believe photons are affected by magnetic fields
3) You believe the Earth's magnetic field holds its atmosphere in place
4) You believe the Earth's weather is affected by the pressure of the solar wind
5) You claim to have a masters degree in physics
6) You believe theory is spelled theroy ; - )
7) You don't apparently realize what a laughing-stock you are around here.

By multiple avenues, humans have been shown to be responsible for the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

That CO2 increase is sufficient to have caused the warming observed. No other cause has so been found.

Human activity is warming the planet. Period.

 

[westwall]

1) You believe photons are matter and have mass
2) You believe photons are affected by magnetic fields
3) You believe the Earth's magnetic field holds its atmosphere in place
4) You believe the Earth's weather is affected by the pressure of the solar wind
5) You claim to have a masters degree in physics
6) You believe theory is spelled theroy ; - )
7) You don't apparently realize what a laughing-stock you are around here.

By multiple avenues, humans have been shown to be responsible for the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

That CO2 increase is sufficient to have caused the warming observed. No other cause has so been found.

Human activity is warming the planet. Period.

Poor, stupid kitty. You have zero observable evidence to support the claim that man is causing anything. If you have some please show it. And remember stupid kitty, computer models are FICTION. They are not observed data. You morons always seem to forget that fact.

 

[Crick]

We have temperature data. We have CO2 level data. We have CO2 absorption spectra. It's you that have absolutely nothing.

 

[fncceo]

We have temperature data. We have CO2 level data. We have CO2 absorption spectra. It's you that have absolutely nothing.

Data which doesn't point to a provable theory and which, in documented cases, has been altered or excluded (by both sides) to support one theory or another.

If Carbon is as significant in the theory as some are claiming, there would be a much more linear correlation between carbon levels and temperature. The fact that this linear correlation doesn't exist points out the mechanism of climate is much more complex that we currently understand with many significant factors apart from Carbon.

Because of the importance of all the known factors (and possible unknown factors) cannot be individually quantified, it is impossible to make valid predictions of the effects of change.

Many people have a significant political and/or economic stake in making Carbon more or less significant in the process and data from both of those needs to be suspect. Without the existence of data without confirmation bias, any conclusions or predictions are useless.

There have been times in the past where human refuse has created local ecological disasters. 19th Century London, 20th Century Chicago are only two examples. Each time, new technologies and the economic forces of the market were able to correct those issues.

We have a great deal of historical experience with how climate changes in the past, man made or otherwise, have affected human civilization. Some of the affects were positive, some decidedly negative. Societal changes cannot be predicted and therefore aren't really a factor in the climate debate.

 

[fncceo]

That CO2 increase is sufficient to have caused the warming observed. No other cause has so been found.

If the observed correlation of delta T and GHG levels isn't linear (which it isn't), what other factors are at work that mitigate the effect of GHG?

 

[Crick]

I think everything pertinent is in that graph. But please elaborate. Why do you think a non-linear relationship means other factors must be mitigating (is that the word you intended) warming? And since that graph does not have a temperature scale, where are you getting delta T v GHGs?

 

[fncceo]

I think everything pertinent is in that graph. But please elaborate. Why do you think a non-linear relationship means other factors must be mitigating (is that the word you intended) warming? And since that graph does not have a temperature scale, where are you getting delta T v GHGs?

We have been increasing our levels of GHG since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century. The Post-war Era of the mid to late 20th Century saw a significant jump in those level increases. According to some, an exponential jump.

If GHG and temperature are so closely related, why hasn't the level of temp increased exponentially with the increase in GHG?

Even if you hypothesize a point of critical concentration that GHG has to obtain before the effect is triggered, clearly temperature should be increasing at the same exponential rate from the moment that concentration was reached.

Those correlations don't exist. The curve of planetary Tavg and curve of concentration of GHG aren't tied together. Actually, they seem to have very little relation at all.

Could the disparity come from the fact we don't have an accurate measurement of Planetary Tavg over time, a very difficult number to observe accurately, even with satellite mapping? Or is it that we're unable to accurately measure concentrations of GHGs at critical points in the atmosphere?

Or, could other factors be a work here beyond GHGs that have a significant impact?

The disparity can't be ignored, it must be accounted for to create a workable hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

That graph shows radiative forcing factors going in both directions and several with independent trends. It would be extrememly surprising if there was a perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature. Be that as it may, the correlation is quite close.

 

[Crick]

More Grumbine Science: Does CO2 correlate with temperature?

This simple analysis finds a 78-82% correlation between CO2 and temperature both since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and over the last 50 years. It's worth a read.

 

[fncceo]

Charts without underlying data or sources might be convincing to some, they they aren't part of an actual debate. It's not lost on anyone that the colors of those charts are designed to maximize their alarming conclusions. Would you be willing to present data with charts in neutral colors? How about just tables without the visual impact of a chart.

A chart is is specifically designed to convince or impress, it's not a conveyor of data in a neutral format.

We don't have accurate global temperature readings to two decimal points for ten years ago, much less 100 years ago. Historical readings of that level of accuracy are speculative at best, deliberately misleading at most. There is still debate about the accuracy of temperature measurements from ice core samples.

The hard truth is, we can't measure historical temperature accurately across the entire planet to the accuracy of .4 degrees.

We can accurately measure percentage of GHG concentrations at ground level but, according to the current hypothesis, the action of GHG occurs at high altitudes, particularly at the transition from atmosphere and space, where we can't measure them accurately.

 

[Crick]

Now your weaseling and we both know it.

 

[fncceo]

Now your weaseling.

Have you ever participated in an actual debate? Questioning the validity of un-sourced data is perfectly acceptable.

You can't publish a paper (not even a term paper) without sourcing your data.

When it comes to science, you have to show your math ... that is fundamental.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

We had until 2010 to take action.

Suck it up and party like there’s no tomorrow.

 

[Crick]

Now your weaseling.

Have you ever participated in an actual debate? Questioning the validity of un-sourced data is perfectly acceptable.

You can't publish a paper (not even a term paper) without sourcing your data.

When it comes to science, you have to show your math ... that is fundamental.

The radiative forcing graphic came from AR5. If you've spent any time here you've seen it dozens and dozens of times.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

But the St00pids are winning!

Congress on climate change action for the past 10 years.....

Evidently, denier stupidity not so stupid!!

 

[fncceo]

Now your weaseling.

Have you ever participated in an actual debate? Questioning the validity of un-sourced data is perfectly acceptable.

You can't publish a paper (not even a term paper) without sourcing your data.

When it comes to science, you have to show your math ... that is fundamental.

The radiative forcing graphic came from AR5. If you've spent any time here you've seen it dozens and dozens of times.

I've seen this dozens of times ... I have reason to believe it's any more real.

A graphic is not equal to evidence.

And, for the record, the IPCC isn't a scientific body, they are a political one.

They have political, no scientific skin in the game.

 

[SSDD]

More Grumbine Science: Does CO2 correlate with temperature?

This simple analysis finds a 78-82% correlation between CO2 and temperature both since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and over the last 50 years. It's worth a read.

What all the graphs show is that temperature increases precede increases in CO2...that is because warmer oceans hold more CO2 than cold oceans....warm the oceans and they start outgassing CO2...and result in increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[SSDD]

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.

SSDD is asking for observed, measured evidence...you are not producing...alas skidmark...it is you who is not defending himself.

 

[SSDD]

So, like AGW theory.

AGW is a hypothesis...and a piss poor one at that. If you believe it deserves to be elevated to a theory...then lets see the observed, measured evidence that warrants such elevation.