nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Please do.

Ricktloml

It is a tool the Democrat-communists/American-Left use

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Just for a quick skim....

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

Breadcrumb
HomeOur workClimateThe problem What causes it
9 ways we know humans caused climate change
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes.

Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause of climate change.

We're the ones who burn fossil fuels, produce livestock and clear trees, increasing the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

It's like the smoking-cancer link
No one questions the link between smoking and cancer, because the science was settled in the 1960s after more than 50 years of research.

We can think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer.

In fact, we are as confident that humans cause climate change as we are that smoking causes cancer.

Scientists have no doubt that humans are causing global warming.

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

Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Permi, as Patrick Mynihan once said, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” This article may not be in line with your personal belief system, but hey, that's life!

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

You say:"Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s)."

Check out the record of the environmentalists to date.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

There are several questions which have to be resolved for all of this to be believed and therefore we shoudl scrap our economies to "save the planet," no matter how many claim to agree with it or not. 100% of doctors once thought that high cholesterol caused heart disease but we now know it is a result of heart disease, not the cause, although some doctors STILL use the old thinking and prescribe statins to lower cholesterol that is very close to the normal range anyway.

Those questions are:

Why is the CO2 levels in the ice cores not rising prior to the warming periods and only after warming began, sometimes as long as 1000 years of lag behind warming???

How much effect can a green house gas have on temp if it is only 0.24% of the entire atmosphere??? Certainly physics say a jar of CO2 will heat up more than a jar of atmosphere. But that jar is 100% CO2, not 0.24% of it.

Why doesn't the isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere match with that of fossil fuels and why isn't that isotopic signature not increasing to be an even better match of the isotopic signature of fossil fuels when, in fact, the isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 is becoming even less of a match to the isotopic signature of fossil fuels. If man released CO2 is the cause of warming, why isn't the isotopic signature of Co2 becoming even more of a match to that of CO2 from fossil fuel burning??

And I'll add another, why are some scientists now claiming that they NEVER claimed rising CO2 levels was the cause of warming, but now say the rising CO2 levels are just reinforcing the warming?

But what about all those thousands of scientists and countries who believe that man burning fossil fuels is the cause of global warming?? What about them??? Well, I don't know. But millions believe all sorts of things that are totally bogus and unbelievable, much of which is backed up by the "experts' in those areas. Everything from religious beliefs to old wives tales to superstitious nonsense. The world cannot base its scientific understanding on the "beliefs" of any group what so ever. BTW, we also know that the 97% consensus about global warming has been debunked. I saw the survey they used to draw that conclusion. It asked if there was even a 5% chance that warming was caused by man, or a 10% chance or a 20 percent chance and on up to a 100% chance. Even those "scientists" who chose the 5% chance were placed in the 97% groups who claimed that man is causing the warming.

So, we are NOT as confident that man is causing global warming as we are that smoking causes lung cancer. Not at all. That is simply NOT true.


Based upon these unanswered questions, there is every reason to think that the warming is part of a natural phenomenon of earth warming and cooling. And, the fact is that permafrost is melting and ice is melting from warming beneath it. Greenland melting is a testament to that fact. And look at how much permafrost there is to melt. Consider the sheer size of the Siberian wilderness and its permafrost covering. The gas emitted as permafrost melts is methane which is 25 times more powerful of a green house gas than CO2. And don't forget about plain old water vapor. It is hundreds of times more powerful of a green house gas and as warming occurs, it is also increasing on a world wide scale.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Interesting, good that the "green revolution" was developed. by the way one of the chief scientists on that project was a man who grew up in Iowa and worked at the U of MN..

Now the plants developed for the rescue are proving unable to deal with the increased world temperature. in India the crop failed a couple years ago and only the low yield plants of the past survived. I do not know the current outlook for India.. but the pessimistic view is that the long expected food stress may soon be a current event.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The CO2 is simple. the gas and heat work together. CO2 can and does result in heat being retained, as the heat builds the air will contain more CO2 and the cycle keeps on rolling... Much better explanations than mine are very easy to find.. if you wish the information..

Methane being released is a result of warmer climate and is perhaps the most serious of the upcoming trends, water vapor is perhaps the most efficient of all at retaining heat, but it does not stay in place condenses and becomes rain and grows the green stuff which uses CO2, becoming a net good guy for the humans who still cling to this earth..

Ted_68

Volcanism and sun cycles . I just solved climate change . Think I need a beer after all that work

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

What you need Ted , is to become much better informed.. the CC is very real as even a casual look will reveal, and the imbalance is obviously man made.. many natural influences are brought into the event as the world heats up, making the problem ever worse and worse.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You aren't coming close to addressing the CO2 issue. Sorry but I don't think it is in your realm of understanding, no offense. The percentages of radio isotope carbon 13 in very specific for CO2 from burning fossil fuels and from other natural sources. Simply put, the CO2 from natural sources is on the rise dramatically and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is decreasing. If man burning fossil fuels is producing the cO2, then the CO2 from burning fossil fuels should be on the rise.

Anyway, . . . .

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Ricktloml

it is rather astounding that these climate alarmists have yet to get 1 prediction right...yet people still swallow their tripe

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And without chewing!!

Ricktloml

Most usually you can dumb-luck yourself into getting something/anything right at least once. Not Leftist ideology...it is so evil...it fails-every-time-it's tried. And fails in a vicious/murderous/oppressive way to boot...every time